برچسب: suing

  • Did You Know That Trump Is Suing the Pulitzer Prize Board?

    Did You Know That Trump Is Suing the Pulitzer Prize Board?


    I don’t know how this story escaped me, but when I saw it, I was shocked. I thought I had become numb to whatever Trump does or says, but my reaction to this story proves it’s not true.

    I’m shocked and stunned to learn that he is suing the board that awards Pulitzer Prizes for journalism for libel because it awarded one to The New York Times and The Washington Post for stories about the investigation of Trump’s ties to Russia. When Trump complained to the board that the stories contained many factual inaccuracies, the board reaffirmed its awards.

    Before Trump was elected in 2016, he had been involved in 3,000 or more lawsuits. That’s his style.

    Dominick Mastrangelo reported in The Hill on May 29:

    President Trump on Wednesday celebrated a ruling from a judge allowing his lawsuit against the Pulitzer Board to proceed.

    In a decision Wednesday, a Florida judge ruled Trump’s defamation lawsuit against the body, which awards the annual Pulitzer Prize recognizing the year’s best journalism, can proceed.

    Trump, after he left office following his first term, sued the board in 2022 in connection with Pulitzers that had been awarded for stories about Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

    The president, in a Truth Social post Wednesday, called the ruling a “major WIN in our powerful lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize Board regarding the illegal and defamatory ‘Award’ of their once highly respected ‘Prize,’ to fake, malicious stories on the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax, by the Failing New York Times and the Washington Compost, the Florida Appellate Court viciously rejected the Defendants’ corrupt attempt to halt the case.”

    “They were awarded for false reporting, and we can’t let that happen in the United States of America,” he continued. “We are holding the Fake News Media responsible for their LIES to the American People, so we can, together, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

    Lawyers for the board had asked the judge in January to pause consideration of the case until after Trump was no longer president.

    In a statement to The Hill on Thursday, a spokesperson for the Pulitzer Board said “allowing this case to proceed facilitates President Trump’s use of state courts as both a sword and a shield — allowing him to seek retribution against anyone he chooses in state court while simultaneously claiming immunity for himself whenever convenient.” 

    “The Pulitzer Board is evaluating next steps and will continue our defense of journalism and First Amendment rights,” the spokesperson said. 

    Trump filed the lawsuit in 2022. A Florida judge rejected the Pulitzer board’s request to dismiss the lawsuit in 2024.

    The lawsuit about whether the case should be heard then went to an appellate court in Florida.

    Politico reported recently that one of the judges who ruled in Trump’s favor had applied to the Trump administration for a promotion before the judgment. After the decision was rendered, he got the promotion.



    Source link

  • Why the ACLU is suing UC Santa Cruz for banning students who participated in spring protests

    Why the ACLU is suing UC Santa Cruz for banning students who participated in spring protests


    Police and protesters faced off on May 31, 2024, at UC Santa Cruz.

    Credit: Photo by Kevin Painchaud / Lookout Santa Cruz

    Civil rights groups representing two students and one professor are suing the University of California Santa Cruz, alleging that the campus unlawfully banned students and faculty from campus last spring after they participated in pro-Palestinian protests.

    By filing the lawsuit, the civil rights groups, including the ACLU of Northern California, are seeking an injunction to prevent the university from banning students again, if there are additional protests in the upcoming fall term, which begins later this month.

    The complaint, filed in Santa Cruz County Superior Court on Monday, says that more than 110 students and faculty were banned from campus for up to 14 days after being arrested at a pro-Palestinian encampment on May 31. Campus officials at the time invoked section 626.4 of California’s penal code, which allows campus chancellors to ban individuals from campus for up to two weeks if they disrupt the orderly operation of the campus.

    The lawsuit, however, alleges that campus officials violated the law by not first providing the individuals with a hearing before banning them. The lawsuit cites precedent in a California Supreme Court case, Braxton v. Municipal Court, when the court ruled that campus officials can ban someone without a hearing only if their continued presence “constitutes a substantial and material threat of significant injury to persons or property.” According to the lawsuit, the campus didn’t provide the banned individuals with findings about how they presented such a threat. 

    The bans had consequences for students and faculty. One of the student plaintiffs, Laaila Irshad, ended up failing multiple classes required for her biology major because she wasn’t able to turn in assignments, meet with her professors or access her computer. Christine Hong, another plaintiff and a professor of critical race and ethnic studies, struggled to prepare for a summer class she would teach on the Korean War. 

    “Even though these were short-term bans, they had a significant impact on the students as well as faculty members who were instantly banished from campus,” said Rachel Lederman, senior counsel with the Center for Protest Law & Litigation. “And it’s blatantly illegal.”

    UC Santa Cruz officials were not available for an interview. In a statement, a campus spokesperson said “the decisions made in the spring were necessary and critical to preserve safety, access, and operations of the campus.”

    The lawsuit comes on the heels of UC President Michael Drake announcing that encampments would be banned across the 10-campus UC system this academic year. He asked each campus to come up with its own policy to enforce those rules.

    Fall classes at Santa Cruz begin on Sept. 26. If the plaintiffs are successful in getting an injunction before then, it would apply only to the Santa Cruz campus. But Lederman said she’s hopeful that such a decision would “send a message” to all UC campuses that they “can’t just summarily ban people from campus without a hearing and without finding that the individual poses a danger.”

    Irshad, now entering her third year at Santa Cruz, said she ended up changing her major as a result of being banned from campus for 12 days in the spring. She wasn’t able to turn in several assignments during that period, and she couldn’t go to her professors’ in-person office hours to ask for extensions. 

    She eventually got a hearing on June 11 and her ban was lifted the next day. But by then, it was too late, she said. She ended up failing a chemistry course required for her biology major, as well as a writing course she needed to fulfill one of her general education requirements.

    Irshad has since changed her major to critical race and ethnic studies. She previously hoped to pursue a career in environmental restoration, but has set aside that goal. 

    “I spent the past two years of my college education paying for classes within bio and now have to make up for lost time, I guess,” she said. 

    Ahead of the fall quarter, Irshad isn’t sure if she will participate in protests again. “I know I have a right to protest. I just am very scared about the impact or the ramifications of what might happen,” she said. 

    It wasn’t only students who were impacted by the bans. Hong, the faculty plaintiff, had planned to spend the final weeks of the spring term preparing to teach a summer class about the Korean War. 

    Hong needed to record lectures for the course, which was online and asynchronous. She said she had a “critical window of time” in late May and early June when she wanted to record them, but she didn’t have access to the campus recording studio nor to the tech staff who would have helped her edit the lectures. She also couldn’t use her office, where she keeps books and other course materials that would have helped her further prepare for the class. 

    Hong’s ban from campus was lifted after 11 days. She ended up offering the class anyway, which had about 75 students. But she said there’s “no question” the quality of the course suffered because of the time she wasn’t able to spend preparing to teach it.

    “Who gets impacted by this? It’s the students; the students get impacted by this,” she said. 





    Source link