Latest news with #FirstCircuitCourtofAppeals
NBC News
2 days ago
- Politics
- NBC News
Judge again blocks Trump administration from halting Harvard's enrolling international students
A federal judge in Massachusetts on Friday again blocked the government's attempt to revoke Harvard's ability to enroll international students. U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs issued the preliminary injunction, after granting a temporary restraining order against the administration. In her decision, Burroughs directed the Trump administration to 'immediately' prepare guidance to alert officials to disregard original notice and to restore 'every visa holder and applicant to the position that individual would have been absent such Revocation Notice.' She asked for that to be done in next 72 hours. Because of this injunction, the Trump administration is also blocked from altering or terminating Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification. The Trump administration is likely to appeal this ruling to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The decision comes after the Trump administration in May attempted to terminate Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, which allows the school to enroll international students on the F-1 and M-1 student visas. The school sued the government the next day, and was granted a temporary restraining order by Burroughs shortly afterward. In a separate proclamation released earlier this month, Donald Trump said he would deny visas to foreign students who were looking to come to the U.S. with the purpose of attending the Ivy League university. The school hit back, amending its May lawsuit and asking the court to halt the proclamation's enforcement, which Burroughs swiftly granted. During a hearing on the injunction, Ian Heath Gershenger, an attorney for the university, accused the administration of 'using international students as pawns,' and singling out Harvard. Department of Justice attorneys focused on the administration's national security concerns, saying they did not trust Harvard to vet thousands of international students. An attorney for the Trump administration previously said that it does not have the same concerns in regards to other schools, but that could change. For months, the government has been entrenched in a tug-of-war with the Ivy League university. In April, the administration's Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism announced that they would be cutting more than $2 billion in grants after the school rejected its demands, which included restricting the acceptance of international students who are 'hostile to the American values and institutions.' Harvard quickly sued the administration and accused it of seeking 'unprecedented and improper' control of the school. As tensions escalated, the administration weeks later further asked all federal agencies to end their contracts with Harvard — an amount totaling $100 million. The administration's targeting of the prestigious university has drawn backlash from critics and free speech advocates, and support for the school from fellow institutions. Earlier this month, two dozen universities filed an amicus brief in support of the school, arguing that the funding freeze would impact more than just Harvard, due to the interconnectedness of scientific research, and would ultimately hinder American innovation and economic growth. And a group of 12,041 Harvard alumni, including prominent names like Conan O'Brien and author Margaret E. Atwood, filed a separate brief describing the withholding of funds as a 'reckless and unlawful' attempt to assert control over the school and other higher education institutions.
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge Lifts Buffer Zone Outside Karen Read Trial
A ban on protests within a 200-foot 'buffer zone' outside a Massachusetts courtroom was lifted by the judge in Karen Read's trial Thursday, opening the door to quiet demonstrations in the public areas outside the building.'Quiet, offsite demonstrations on public property, in areas and at times that do not interfere with trial participants' entrance into or exit from the Courthouse, and that do not interfere with the orderly administration of justice, and that are not intended to influence any trial participants in the discharge of their duties are specifically outside the scope of the Buffer Zone restrictions,' Judge Beverly Cannone wrote in a decision released Thursday. Cannone had ordered the buffer zone, she said, to prevent protesters from intimidating jurors and witnesses and making so much noise as to disrupt the proceedings. A federal judge refused to issue a preliminary injunction against the buffer zone, finding that a group of protesters was unlikely to be able to show that its First Amendment rights outweighed the right to a fair the protesters' lawyer, Mark Randazza, told the First Circuit appellate court last week that his clients would agree to remain silent, protest only on streets and sidewalks off courthouse property and stay away when jurors entered and left the courthouse. 'The First Amendment is back from vacation in Massachusetts,' Randazza said in a statement. 'After treating courthouse sidewalks like North Korea with better landscaping, the First Circuit reminded everyone that free speech doesn't take vacations just because one judge or police department is offended.' Cannone reversed herself after the First Circuit Court of Appeals issued a Per Curiam in which jurists urged a reconsideration. "Read's case has become something of a cultural phenomenon. It has drawn headlines, controversy, and, as relevant here, throngs of demonstrators near the Norfolk County Courthouse (the "Courthouse"). The prior behavior of some of those demonstrators - including loud protests and the display of materials directed toward trial participants - frames a potential conflict between the state court's effort to conduct a fair trial and demonstrators' right to express their views," the court wrote. Read, 45, is charged with hitting her Boston cop boyfriend John O'Keefe, with her SUV and leaving him to die in a snowbank after a night of drinking. Her Los Angeles defense attorney Alan Jackson insists that O'Keefe died after a fight with another cop inside the house of another officer where his body was found and then framed Read. The controversy swirling around the case intensified when text messages from the lead police investigator in the case, Massachusetts State Police Trooper Michael Proctor, wrote in a group text that included his supervisors that he had searched Read's phone for nude photos of her. He also called her 'whackjob cunt,' ridiculed her for having a chronic illness, made disparaging comments about her body and said that he hoped she would kill herself. He was fired in March. On Thursday, jurors heard evidence about whether it was possible that O'Keefe was punched in the face prior to his body being found in the snow. Dr. Irini Scordi-Bello, a Commonwealth of Massachusetts medical examiner, testified during cross-examination that she did not find any injuries on O'Keefe's body consistent with being struck by a vehicle. 'You did not include in your autopsy in any fashion, any discussion of whether Mr. O'Keefe's injuries were consistent with a motor vehicle accident, did you?' a member of Read's defense team Robert Alessi asked. 'I did not,' Scordi-Bello answered.'Did you evaluate it at all in your autopsy?' Alessi said. 'Whether Mr. O'Keefe had any injuries consistent with a motor vehicle accident?' 'Yes, I did examine his lower extremities,' Scordi-Bello said. 'That is protocol in any case of suspected impact with a motor vehicle. So I did examine his legs and I did not see any evidence of an impact site.' O'Keefe's manner of death was ultimately listed as undetermined after Scordi-Bello was unable to come to a homicide ruling based on available evidence at the time of the in the case is in its fourth week. Jurors were sent home on Tuesday after Read fell ill.
Hans India
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
David Souter, Retired Supreme Court Justice and Symbol of a Bygone Era, Dies at 85
Retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter, whose unexpected shift from conservative appointee to reliable liberal voice marked a turning point in American judicial politics, has died at the age of 85. Appointed in 1990 by Republican President George H.W. Bush, Souter defied expectations by siding with the court's liberal wing on major decisions throughout his nearly two decades on the bench. His legacy lives on not only through the cases he helped shape, but in the cautionary tale his career became for future Republican judicial nominations. Souter's tenure is widely seen as the reason the GOP became far more rigid in vetting Supreme Court nominees. His liberal rulings, especially in key social cases, gave rise to the phrase "no more Souters"—a rallying cry that reshaped how justices are chosen. That shift has helped solidify the current conservative supermajority, which in 2022 overturned Roe v. Wade. Though current justices occasionally diverge from partisan expectations—Chief Justice John Roberts, for example—none have mirrored Souter's ideological journey. In a statement following Souter's death, Roberts praised his former colleague: 'Justice David Souter served our Court with great distinction for nearly twenty years. He brought uncommon wisdom and kindness to a lifetime of public service... He will be greatly missed.' Following his retirement in 2009, Souter returned to New Hampshire and continued to serve the judiciary by hearing cases on the First Circuit Court of Appeals. His retirement, during President Barack Obama's first term, enabled the appointment of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, reinforcing a now-rare moment of ideological transition. Obama's other nominee, Justice Elena Kagan, replaced John Paul Stevens—another Republican appointee who ultimately aligned with the liberal bloc. Today's court reflects a more hardened partisan divide. It is now rare, if not unthinkable, for a justice to retire under a president from the opposing party, a sharp contrast to Souter's era. As ideological battle lines continue to shape judicial appointments, David Souter remains a quiet but profound reminder of a time when unpredictability was still possible on the nation's highest court.
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge dismisses suit filed by former Ludlow teacher fired for outing ‘genderqueer' student to parents
SPRINGFIELD — A federal judge dismissed a suit Friday from a teacher who was fired for outing a queer student to their parents, potentially closing another chapter in a long-running case over gender policies at a Ludlow middle school. Bonnie A. Manchester filed a $10 million lawsuit against former school officials and the town after she was fired from her job at Paul R. Baird Middle School in 2021. Manchester was fired for 'conduct unbecoming a teacher,' after higher-ups decided her decision to reveal an 11-year old's student's gender preferences to their parents ran roughshod over school and state policies. The plaintiff, hired in 1999, countered that the firing violated her First Amendment right to free speech and added that parent engagement was an important tenet of her job. In a ruling issued Friday, U.S. District Judge Mark G. Mastroianni disagreed, granting a defense motion to dismiss the case. 'The court concludes (the) plaintiff's federal causes of action fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. These federal claims are therefore dismissed,' the judge wrote in a 24-page memorandum. The ruling in Manchester's case comes three years after Mastroianni dismissed a lawsuit filed by the child's parents, contending their rights as parents were violated when the school initially kept the student's preferences quiet. The dismissal was upheld by the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Years before that, there was an uproar among parents when a nonbinary librarian introduced gender-fluid themes and book titles at the school library — rendering this small Western Massachusetts town a microcosm of the national debate over gender identity. A lawyer for Manchester on Tuesday said he disagrees with the judge's ruling and is considering his client's right to appeal. 'I'm sure the judge did what he thought was right through his own light, but we have a very different view and will let higher tribunals review it,' said Bolton attorney Frank L. McNamara Jr. The child in question, who was born a female, sent an email in 2021 to teachers and administrators, expressing their preference to be called a new name and adding that they preferred he/him or they pronouns. The student referred to themselves as 'genderqueer.' In the same email, the student asked teachers to continue using she/her when communicating with parents, as they were reticent about disclosing to their family, according to court records. Shortly before that, several teachers conferred about the child, identified only by initials in court records, expressing worry over their emotional and academic downturn during COVID-19. They agreed to contact the child's parents, but administrators later decided otherwise, asking teachers not to reveal the information to protect the student's privacy and personal wishes. Despite that directive, Manchester later had a conversation with the child's father while her car was getting serviced at his auto shop, court records say. Included in Mastroianni's ruling was a summary of the exchange between Manchester and the father, regarding 'the phenomenon of gender dysphoria, then prevalent among certain teens, particularly since the onset of COVID,' the account reads. 'Ms. Manchester also discussed with the father efforts then underway by certain teachers and administrators at Baird to assist LGBTQ students in 'regendering,' to protect them from bullying and other forms of harassment, and to conceal information from parents, and how all this was a matter of great public concern and controversy among teachers, parents, (administrators) and School Committee members, not only in Ludlow but also nationwide,' the summary continues. Once the student informed a counselor that Manchester had disclosed to the parents the contents of their email, she was placed on administrative leave for several weeks and later fired, citing 'inappropriate communications.' Mastroianni found the lawsuit was erroneously filed against the town, as municipalities can only be found liable if it directly causes a constitutional violation. Further, the judge said Manchester's First Amendment rights were minimal compared to the school's interest to foster student expression without backlash. In her lawsuit, Manchester argued she acted to prevent a 'grave moral wrong' and to avoid setting an 'immoral example.' Mastroianni said her personal philosophies do not outweigh a school system's obligation to provide a supportive environment for all students. 'These beliefs, even if sincerely held, do not insulate (the) plaintiff from the employment related consequences of her choice to undercut the school's greater (and constitutionally recognized) interest in protecting an inclusive and safe environment for transgender minors as a matter of law,' his order says. Read the original article on MassLive.
Fox News
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Maine Rep Laurel Libby appeals Biden-appointed judge's verdict on controversial trans athlete censure
Maine GOP state Rep. Laurel Libby filed an emergency appeal with the First Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday over a recent ruling that upheld her censure in the legislature. The state's Democrat majority voted to censure her for writing a social media post that identified a trans athlete who won a girls' state pole vault competition in February. Libby filed a lawsuit against House Speaker Ryan Fecteau to have it overturned, but Rhode Island U.S. District Court Judge Melissa DuBose ruled against Libby on Friday. DuBose was appointed by former President Joe Biden just before he left office in January. Libby previously told Fox News Digital that she would appeal the ruling once it was announced, and now she has, and she is willing to take her case to the Supreme Court. "Our appeal asks the court to correct this abuse of power and reaffirm that legislative leadership cannot use procedural maneuvers and sweeping assertions of immunity to sideline dissenting voices and disenfranchise entire communities," Libby told Fox News Digital in a statement. "I remain optimistic that the court will recognize what is plainly at stake: the integrity of representative government and the foundational principle that no elected official, no legislative leader, and no partisan majority is above the Constitution. The people of House District 90 deserve full representation, and we intend to see that right restored." Libby represents 9,000 constituents in Maine's 90th District and has not been able to speak or vote on their behalf in the state legislature for two months. "This appeal is about far more than one legislator's seat – it's about defending the constitutional rights of 9,000 Mainers who currently have no voice and no vote in the Maine House of Representatives," Libby said. "I'm grateful for the support of my constituents and so many others across Maine who understand the importance of speaking truth and standing firm. I will continue to press forward until the voices of the people I was elected to represent are heard once again in Augusta." DuBose presided over the case after every district judge in Maine refused to take it. Judges John C. Nivison, John A. Woodcock, Lance E. Walker, Karen F. Wolf, Stacey D. Neumann and Nancy Torresen signed recusal orders shortly after the case was initially filed. No reason was given. So the case went to DuBose in Rhode Island. The censure so far has cost her a chance to vote on the state's biannual budget and propose a bill to expand access to mental health resources for residents. It also prevents Libby from voting on or speaking on the House floor about a bill that would add trans inclusion in girls' sports to the state constitution. Her colleagues will vote on the Democrat majority's bill after it passed with a slim simple majority in the House on Thursday, but it needs a two-thirds majority in both chambers before it can go before voters. If passed, it would codify in the state's constitution the Maine Human Rights Act, which protects the rights of transgender athletes to compete for sports teams of the opposite sex. The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the state for its ongoing defiance of Trump's Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports executive order. Maine has faced federal pressure in the last two months over its refusal to comply, including two federal investigations, a funding freeze by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and now a lawsuit. The Democrat leadership in the state, led by Gov. Janet Mills, has fought back by filing its own lawsuit against Trump over the funding freeze. Another federal judge has already ruled the USDA must unfreeze the funding. Follow Fox News Digital's sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.
