CourtSide - The FindLaw Breaking Legal News Blog

Recently in Civil Rights Category

Former Essex County College professor Lisa Durden was defending the decision of Black Lives Matter to exclude white people from a Memorial Day Event to Fox News' Tucker Carlson last year when she said: "What I say to that is, 'Boo hoo hoo.' You white people are angry because you couldn't use your 'white privilege' card to get invited to the Black Lives Matter's all-black Memorial Day celebration."

Two days later she was told to cancel a class and suspended, and three weeks after her television appearance, she was fired. Durden is now suing the school and administrators, claiming it violated her free speech rights, created a hostile work environment, and breached her contract. Here's the lawsuit.

The New York Police Department settled another lawsuit involving widespread surveillance of Muslim communities in New York, New Jersey, and beyond. The spying program, which spanned a decade and targeted hundreds of individuals, businesses, and mosques, failed to produce a single, actionable lead in a criminal investigation.

It did, however, consist of several constitutional violations, which the NYPD has promised to correct under the settlement, as well as compensate victims monetarily. You can read the full settlement, along with the allegations, below.

Kayla Cuevas' mother claims her daughter was "subjected to continuous and ongoing bullying" for years while a student in Brentwood, New York. The numerous incidents happened on school grounds in the Brentwood Union School District and were perpetrated by MS-13 gang members, Evelyn Rodriguez claims, with full knowledge of the school district.

Cuevas was killed, allegedly by MS-13 members, in September 2016, and Rodriguez is suing the school district, claiming it failed to stop the bullying and protect her daughter from gang violence. You can see the lawsuit below:

Via his favored mode of communication and proclamation, President Donald Trump last month tweeted that "the United States Government will not accept or allow ... Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military." While there was some disagreement whether the tweets could be interpreted or implemented as official military policy, the announcement angered many in both the LGBTQ and military community.

It also angered LGBTQ individuals already in the military. Today five transgender members of the U.S. military sued Trump, claiming the tweets violate the due process and equal protection rights of transgender service members, and asking for an injunction against the ban. You can read the full lawsuit below.

As the saying goes, if at first you don't succeed; try, try, try again. President Donald Trump may be on his third try after his second attempt at an executive order limiting travel from several predominantly Muslim countries was blocked much in the same way as the first.

The U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, upheld a lower court's injunction prohibiting the travel ban from being enforced, and minced no words in doing so. With many guessing the case will now head to the Supreme Court, you can read the Fourth Circuit's decision below.

Soon after his election as president, Donald Trump attempted to crack down on speech coming out of federal agencies, especially speech on social media that might be critical of the new administration or supportive of the previous one. That attempt backfired somewhat, with federal employees going "rogue" and creating alternate social media accounts used to blast Trump policy changes.

In response, the Trump administration furthered its attempt to silence disparaging speech, issuing a federal summons to Twitter in an effort to unmask the users behind at least one rogue account. Twitter didn't blink, and countersued the Department of Homeland Security, along with several other individuals and agencies.

Less than 24 hours later, Trump's team withdrew its summons and Twitter followed suit, dropping its complaint challenging the administration's power to demand such information. You can read Twitter's filing below.

In 2015, the Freedom of the Press Foundation sued the Department of Justice under the Freedom of Information Act in an attempt to force the DOJ to publish its rules for conducting warrantless spying on journalists in the United States. The DOJ responded that it had supplied all of the documentation the Foundation requested, aside from information that fell under certain FOIA exceptions.

This week, a U.S. District judge in California ruled that the unpublished rules on media surveillance could remain unpublished, ending the Foundation's lawsuit. You can read the opinion in full, below:

It seemed as if as soon as President Donald Trump announced his executive order banning Syrian refugees and instituting "extreme vetting" for travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries, the lawsuits started flying. One of the most important was filed by the state of Washington and was successful in getting a temporary restraining order blocking federal officials from enforcing the order.

Trump's lawyers appealed the TRO, requesting a stay until the case ran its course, but that request was denied over the weekend. The parties are still battling in court, and 97 companies decided to join the fray, filing a brief in support of Washington and claiming, among other things, that the order "effects a sudden shift in the rules governing entry into the United States, and is inflicting substantial harm on U.S. companies." You can see their full filing below:

The federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals today struck down North Carolina's voter identification requirement, saying the state legislature enacted the law with discriminatory intent. The court bluntly rejected the statute, saying "the General Assembly enacted them in the immediate aftermath of unprecedented African American voter participation in a state with a troubled racial history and racially polarized voting. The district court clearly erred in ignoring or dismissing this historical background evidence, all of which supports a finding of discriminatory intent."

You can read the full opinion below:

In its last major decision of the October 2015 term, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Texas law regulating abortion clinics and doctors placed an undue burden on a woman's right to end a pregnancy. The statute required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and also imposed strict regulations on surgical centers, causing about half the state's abortion clinics to shut down.

The Court, still missing a replacement for conservative justice Antonin Scalia, voted 5-3 that the Texas restrictions were unconstitutional. You can read the majority opinion, along with two dissenting opinions, below: