2 Siouxland groups hosting human rights events Saturday
SIOUX CITY, Iowa (KCAU) — On Saturday, two Siouxland groups are planning to hold human rights events.
According to a release from Sweetgrass Uprising and the Siouxland Good Troublemakers, they will be holding events 'to stand up for human rights.'
The first of the two events is a United We Stand March that will be held by Sweetgrass Uprising in South Sioux City. The march will begin at 4:30 p.m. at the vacant Advance Auto Parts parking lot.
The march will then head across the Veteran's Memorial Bridge into Sioux City, leading marchers to the Mildred Anderson Pavillion, and then the Sioux City Public Museum Green Space. During the march, there will be four prayer stops.
Story continues below
Top Story: The Latest: Israel attacks Iran, killing top military officers
Lights & Sirens: Jury for Dakota Dunes murder trial still up in the air
Sports: Champions Chat: West Sioux boys soccer
Weather: Get the latest weather forecast here
Following the march, the Siouxland Good Troublemakers will be hosting multiple speakers at the Public Museum Green Space, where they will be reading passages from the United States Constitution and its Amendments. Multiple treaties will also be read. This event will begin at around 6 p.m.
I started Sweetgrass Uprising as a way to bring people together in the community and to unify as one against an unjust and corrupt government,' Sweetgrass Uprising organizer Jessica Lopez-Walker said. 'We will stand up for those who cannot. They won't break our spirits!'
Siouxland Good Troublemakers co-organizer Garie Lewis said, 'With the chaos coming out of D.C., it is more important than at anytime in my life for all people to come together and realize that we have more in common with each other than we do with any so-called leader that tries to make us hate our neighbors. Any person that does that is the enemy of peace.'
During the event, donations for Safe Place of Siouxland will also be collected.
These events are taking place on the same day as many 'No Kings Day of Defiance' protests will be taking place around the nation.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
13 hours ago
- The Hill
Supreme Court ruling scrambles battle for transgender care
The Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered a substantial blow to transgender-rights advocates in upholding a 2023 Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors, a decision that could have far-reaching consequences for the future of transgender health in the U.S. but whose impact won't be felt right away. 'The immediate outcome is that it doesn't change anything,' said Kellan Baker, executive director of the Institute for Health Research and Policy at Whitman-Walker, a Washington-based nonprofit. 'It doesn't affect the availability or legality of care in states that do not have bans, and it simply says that states that have decided to ban this care can do so if they survive other challenges.' Twenty-seven Republican-led states since 2021 have adopted laws that ban transition-related care, including puberty blockers, hormone therapy and rare surgeries for minors. Laws passed in Arizona and New Hampshire — the first Northeastern state to have restricted gender dysphoria treatments for youth — only prohibit minors from accessing surgeries, a provision that was not at issue before the Supreme Court. In a 6-3 decision, the high court upheld a lower court ruling that found Tennessee's restrictions do not violate the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. The state's law, which allows cisgender children and teens to access medications that it bans for trans minors, makes distinctions based on age and diagnosis, the courts ruled, rather than sex and transgender status. Three Tennessee families, a doctor and the Biden administration, along with attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Lambda Legal, argued the measure amounts to illegal sex discrimination, warranting heightened review. 'Having concluded it does not,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority on Wednesday, 'we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.' At least 10 legal challenges to state laws prohibiting health professionals from administering gender-affirming care to minors argue the restrictions discriminate based on sex in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court's ruling Wednesday could potentially weaken, in some cases, that line of attack, but it is not the only approach opponents of the laws have pursued. More than a dozen other lawsuits, including ones arguing equal protection under the U.S. Constitution, claim bans on transition-related health care for minors violate the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, federal disability law or provisions of a state's constitution. In May, a federal judge struck Montana's ban on gender-affirming care for youth on grounds it violated privacy, equal protection and free speech rights guaranteed by its constitution. 'This ruling allows challenges to other state bans to continue,' said Baker, of Whitman-Walker, 'and they will.' Karen Loewy, senior counsel and director of Lambda Legal's constitutional law practice, told reporters on a Zoom call following Wednesday's ruling that the civil rights organization and others challenging state bans on gender-affirming care have other options at their disposal. 'The Supreme Court did not endorse the entirety of the lower court's ruling; it did not mandate or even greenlight other bans on gender-affirming medical care, even for young people, or other forms of discrimination,' she said. 'It really is about how it viewed Tennessee's in this specific way, and left us plenty of tools to fight other bans on health care and other discriminatory actions that target transgender people, including other equal protection arguments about transgender status discrimination, about the animus-based targeting of trans people.' Loewy added that the court's ruling also left the door open to arguments based on state and federal sex discrimination statutes and parental rights, which the justices did not address Wednesday. Nearly all of the cases brought against youth gender-affirming care bans argue those laws infringe on the rights of parents to make medical decisions on behalf of their children. 'As a parent, I know my child better than any government official ever will,' Samantha Williams, the mother of L.W., a transgender teenager who was at the center of the case before the Supreme Court, wrote in a New York Times op-ed after Wednesday's ruling. The Supreme Court's determination that Tennessee's law does not discriminate based on sex also raises questions about how opponents of transition-related health care for minors will use the ruling to inform their own legal strategies. In Arkansas, the ACLU successfully argued in 2023 that the first-in-the-nation ban on gender-affirming care for minors violated the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, as well as its Due Process Clause and the First Amendment's protections of free speech. 'We'll have to see, but it's possible that that ban could stand because the court made that decision on equal protection, as well as on other grounds,' said Lindsey Dawson, director for LGBTQ health policy at KFF, a nonprofit health policy research, polling and news organization. 'This is likely to be an area that's going to face continued litigation and is not settled at this point in time.' In a statement Wednesday, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin (R) said he is 'preparing an official notification' for an appeals court detailing the implications of Wednesday's Supreme Court decision on the state's ban, which the Legislature passed — and former Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson initially vetoed — in 2021. 'Because our law is similar to Tennessee's law, today's decision has positive implications for our case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit,' he said. Montana and Arkansas are the only states whose bans on gender-affirming care for youth remain blocked by court orders, according to the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit group that tracks LGBTQ laws. The Supreme Court's ruling Wednesday also declined, as some court watchers had anticipated, to apply the reasoning of its earlier decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shields employees from discrimination based on their sex or gender identity. Some lawsuits challenging state bans on care for minors have said the ruling should apply to contexts other than workplace discrimination. Former President Biden's administration similarly sought to use the court's reasoning in Bostock to back new nondiscrimination policies protecting transgender people in health care and sports, arguments largely rejected by conservative political leaders and courts. 'We still don't have a sole understanding of where Bostock might apply outside of Title VII, and it's going to be something that's important to watch,' Dawson said. 'It's certainly something that the Bostock court warned us about,' she said. 'In that decision, the court said, this court is making its ruling and it's quite narrow, but it's going to be for future courts to decide how this applies outside of Title VII. That remains a question mark.'
UPI
2 days ago
- UPI
Appeals court lets Trump control guardsmen deployed to Los Angeles
Thousands of protesters gather at City Hall to protest the policies of the Trump administration in the nationwide "No Kings Day of Defiance" demonstrations in Los Angeles on Saturday, June 14, 2025. Late Thursday, an appeals court ruled President Donald Trump may maintain control of National Guardsmen he deployed to the streets of Los Angeles. Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPI | License Photo June 20 (UPI) -- A federal appeals court ruled late Thursday that President Donald Trump may maintain control of thousands of National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles, a blow to the state's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, who is fighting to keep the soldiers off his streets. The three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was unanimous, ruling that Trump's order federalizing members of the California National Guard was likely legal. The court though disagreed with the Trump administration's argument that the president's decision to federalize the troops was insulated from judicial review but acknowledged that they must be "highly deferential" to it. "Affording the President that deference, we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority," the court said in its 38-page ruling, though it added "nothing in our decision addresses the nature of the activities in which the federalized National Guard may engage." The panel included two Trump-appointed judges, Mark Bennett and Eric Miller, and President Joe Biden appointee Jennifer Sung. The ruling stays a lower court's order that had directed the Trump administration to remove the troops deployed to Los Angeles streets. Trump celebrated the ruling as a "BIG WIN" on his Truth Social media platform. "The Judges obviously realized that Gavin Newscum is incompetent and ill prepared, but this is much bigger than Gavin, because all over the United States ,if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable , for whatever reason to get the job done," Trump said in the post, referring to the California governor by an insulting moniker he invented. Trump -- who campaigned on mass deportations while using incendiary and derogatory rhetoric as well as misinformation about immigrants -- has been leading a crackdown on immigration since returning to the White House. On June 6, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents began conducting raids in Los Angeles, prompting mass protests in the city. In response, Trump deployed some 2,000 California National Guardsmen to Los Angeles to quell the demonstrations and to protect ICE agents performing immigration arrests. The number of troops deployed has since increased to 4,000, despite protests having abated. The deployment was met with staunch opposition, criticism of Trump for continuing an extreme right-wing slide into authoritarianism and a lawsuit from Newsom, who was initially awarded a stay ordering the troops to be removed from the Los Angeles streets. However, an appeals court hours later issued a preliminary injunction, which late Thursday was made a stay. Newsom, in a statement, expressed disappointment over the ruling while highlighting the court's rejection of Trump's argument that his decision to deploy the troops is beyond judicial review. "The President is not a king and is not above the law," Newsom said, vowing to continue to fight the deployment in court. "We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens." The deployment by Trump is the first by a president without a governor's permission since 1965.
UPI
2 days ago
- UPI
Federal immigration agents denied access to Dodger Stadium
Thousands of protesters gather at City Hall to protest the policies of the Trump administration in the nationwide "No Kings Day of Defiance" demonstrations in Los Angeles on Saturday. Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPI | License Photo June 19 (UPI) -- The Los Angeles Dodgers barred immigration agents from entering Dodger Stadium property Thursday, as tensions continue amid stepped up federal immigration enforcement efforts in the city. Dozens of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were reportedly gathered near the ballpark in what appeared to be a staging area, local media reported. Team officials said the agents tried to gain access to the property but were turned away. "This morning, ICE agents came to Dodger Stadium and requested permission to access the parking lots," the statement on X said. "They were denied entry to the grounds by the organization. Tonight's game will be played as scheduled." ICE denied on social media that the agents were associated with the agency. "False," the post said. "We were never there." Video posted on social media, however, appeared to show otherwise. The agents were dressed in tactical gear and were gathered in a lot near the stadium. The Department of Homeland Security later clarified that the officers were with Customs and Border Protection and not ICE, and added that they "had nothing to do with the Dodgers." A small group of protesters gathered near the ballpark Thursday following a series of immigration enforcement actions earlier in the day, including one at a Home Depot store on Sunset Boulevard. The Dodgers have faced criticism for not being more outspoken against federal immigration enforcement actions, including the deployment of thousands of National Guard troops to help local police with immigration raids and arrests.
