Idaho AG bans ‘Everyone is Welcome Here' signs at public schools, says the ‘political statement' violates state law
A legal opinion was released on Friday by Attorney General Raúl Labrador's office that officially banned signs like the one Lewis and Clark Middle School teacher Sarah Inama displayed in her classroom in February.
The AG's office found that banners like Inama's, which read 'Everyone is Welcome Here,' violates the state's vague House Bill 41 prohibiting flags or banners alluding to or depicting any political viewpoint in public schools.
Advertisement
'These signs are part of an ideological/social movement which started in Twin Cities, Minnesota following the 2016 election of Donald Trump. Since that time, the signs have been used by the Democratic party as a political statement. The Idaho Democratic Party even sells these signs as part of its fundraising efforts,' the office's statement said.
3 A legal opinion released by the Idaho Attorney General's Office determined that the 'Everyone is Welcome Here' banner can't be hung in public schools.
KTVB-TV
Inama made headlines last winter when the West Ada School District ordered her to remove her 'Everyone is Welcome Here' sign featuring cartoon hands in various skin tones.
Advertisement
Inama originally took the poster down, but had a change of heart and put it back up over the weekend.
The district administration asserted that Inama needed to take it down because the message 'is not something that everybody believes,' she told KTVB.
According to emails from the district obtained by the Idaho Statesman, the district took issue with the different skin-toned hands, which apparently violated the state's requirement that all displayed content be 'neutral and conducive to a positive learning environment.'
3 The opinion asserted that the banner was 'part of an ideological/social movement.'
Advertisement
The Idaho Democratic Party started to sell the merchandise inspired by the posters on March 25 'after hearing from Idahoans who wanted a way to show support for Ms. Inama,' the party's communications director Avery Roberts wrote in an email to The Post.
'Across the state, parents and teachers, regardless of their political affiliations, want children to have a fair shot. They're working hard to build strong public schools where every student feels welcome and has the support they need to succeed,' Roberts wrote.
3 The teacher at the center of the poster controversy has hung up the poster annually since 2017.
Lewis and Clark Middle School
'We're not doing this to make money. The signs and stickers barely cover costs. What matters is the message. Taking a stand against discrimination shouldn't be a partisan issue, and we hope leaders in every party see it that way.'
Advertisement
The office's opinion goes on to note that Inama began displaying the signs in her classroom shortly after Trump's first term in 2017 and accused her of hanging it to 'share her personal, ideological beliefs.'
Per the office's opinion, certain types of student artwork could also be prohibited from being hung in schools.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Media's death by a thousand cuts
Press freedom advocates are sounding the alarm following Paramount's $16 million settlement with President Trump, arguing the deal sets a dangerous new precedent, particularly for smaller outlets with fewer legal resources. Why it matters: A steady decline in media trust, coupled with enormous financial challenges, has made the press more vulnerable to political pressure campaigns than ever before. Between the lines: The deal has drawn outrage from critics who believe Paramount could have won what they believe is a frivolous lawsuit. While the size of the agreement is nearly identical to ABC's settlement with Trump last year, Paramount is under fire because its deal comes as the company seeks regulatory approval for its $8 billion merger with Skydance Media. Democratic Sens. Ron Wyden and Elizabeth Warren both called the settlement "bribery." The Knight Institute said Paramount's legal exposure was "negligible," and argued it should've fought the case in court. PEN America, another press freedom group, said Paramount "caved to presidential pressure" and "chose appeasement to bolster its finances." Reality check: The Wall Street Journal editorial board on Wednesday noted that this moment feels like a turning point for press freedom. "President Trump has taunted the media for years, and some of his jibes are deserved given the groupthink in most newsrooms. What's happening now, though, is different: The President is using government to intimidate news outlets that publish stories he doesn't like. It's a low move in a free country with a free press," it wrote. Zoom out: The settlement comes as the administration ramps up its efforts to target the press. Most recently, President Trump and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem have endorsed the idea of prosecuting CNN for its critical coverage of U.S. strikes in Iran and its immigration reporting. President Trump also suggested he could demand journalists reveal their sources in light of the Iran intel leak. In April, the Justice Department repealed protections for journalist-source confidentiality The White House has already banned the AP over its editorial standards. It's also pushing Congress to gut funding for public media. The FCC has launched investigations into Comcast/NBCU and Disney/ABC for their DEI policies. The big picture: The Paramount settlement is the latest in a slew of recent examples that show just how desperate media companies are to survive political and economic pressure. Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery, Paramount, Gannett and other major media companies have all rolled back diversity, equity and inclusion policies to mirror the administration's new mandate on DEI. The vast majority of America's largest newspapers by circulation are no longer doing presidential endorsements. PBS member WNET cut 90 seconds from a documentary last month, in which the film's subject, author and cartoonist Art Spiegelman criticized Trump, per The Atlantic. ABC News dropped longtime correspondent Terry Moran after he criticized President Trump and top aide Stephen Miller in a since-deleted tweet, drawing swift criticism.
UPI
an hour ago
- UPI
House Republicans advance Trump's tax and spending cuts bill
July 3 (UPI) -- House Republicans advanced Donald Trump's massive tax and spending cuts bill early Thursday following a mammoth overnight marathon session that included interventions by the president and House Speaker Mike Johnson to gain the votes of a handful of GOP holdouts. At 3:23 a.m. Thursday, the House voted 219-213 to bring the bill to the floor for debate. The vote was along party lines, with only one Republican, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, crossing the aisle to vote against Trump's bill with his Democratic colleagues. That's a dramatic turnaround, as Republicans in opposition to the bill had stalled the House for hours. About an hour before the bill passed, five Republicans had voted "no" and there were eight holdouts. "FOR REPUBLICANS, THIS SHOULD BE AN EASY YES VOTE. RIDICULOUS!!!" the president complained late Wednesday on his Truth Social media platform. "What are the Republicans waiting for???" Trump interjected in another post. "What are you trying to prove??? MAGA IS NOT HAPPY, AND IT'S COSTING YOU VOTES!!!" His deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security advisor, Stephen Miller, described the bill in almost biblical proportions, stating on social media that the vote "is the kind of opportunity, once lost, where people look back centuries later and ask how the moment to save civilization was allowed to pass by." Johnson held the vote open for five hours, and before it closed -- and in unprecedented fashion -- he gathered his GOP holdouts and prayed with them on the House floor. then he snapped their photo. The bill was then adopted. "It's been a long, productive day," Johnson of Louisiana told reporters earlier Wednesday night amid the stall. "We've been talking with members from across the conference and making sure that everyone's concerns are addressed and their questions are answered. And it's -- it's been a good day. We're in a good place right now." The bill is forecast to add $3.3 trillion to the deficit over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Adding to the deficit, tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and cuts to Medicaid are some of the reasons why opposition to the bill came not only from Democrats but also from conservative Republicans. According to The Hill, Trump spoke over the phone early Thursday with holdouts Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., Victoria Spartz, R-Ind. and Tim Burchett, R-Tenn. -- all of whom eventually voted to move to bill forward This is a developing story.
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
New push for national AI rules likely after state ban fails
The demise of a controversial proposal in Republicans' budget bill that blocked state-level regulation of artificial intelligence is fueling fresh pressure for federal action, advocates told Axios Wednesday. Why it matters: Congress' reluctance to set national AI rules for privacy, safety and intellectual property rights has left states to forge ahead with their own rules. Driving the news: Some senators fought until the last minute to keep an industry-backed 10-year ban on state-level regulation in the budget bill. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and some of his allies in the administration fought until the last minute to keep an industry-backed 10-year ban on state-level regulation in the budget bill. They failed — for now. "We hope that this unequivocal rebuke to the idea of saying that states can't regulate AI is a lot of political motivation for the folks who do want to regulate AI on Capitol Hill," said Eric Kashdan, Campaign Legal Center's senior legal counsel for federal advocacy. Catch up quick: The Senate early Tuesday voted nearly unanimously to remove the proposed moratorium on state-level AI regulations from the budget bill. It would have prevented states that want certain government grants from enforcing legislation on AI regulation. "The reconciliation package was the best possibility for something this bad to get through," said Alix Fraser, the vice president of advocacy for Issue One. The House passed a version of the budget bill that included the state AI moratorium, but the Senate's version, which dropped it, now faces resistance from some House Republicans. Friction point: President Trump 's aides and advisers were split on the moratorium. While many have favored a light hand with AI to bolster U.S. efforts to keep ahead of China, others are concerned that the moratorium rules would also make it harder for states to regulate social media, particularly around protecting kids. Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon helped fuel opposition, the Wall Street Journal reported, and many in the MAGA movement still believe Big Tech has stifled conservative voices. "Bannon has never been a fan of this sort of techno utopia that a lot of Silicon Valley-ites desire, and the idea of a moratorium was antithetical to that approach," Fraser said. Zoom out: More than 20 Democratic- and Republican-led states have passed AI regulation legislation. An April Pew study found the public is worried the government won't go far enough in regulating AI. Most Americans support a national AI standard and think a patchwork of state laws will make it harder for the U.S. to compete with China, according to a June Morning Consult and TechNet poll. "There's a huge public demand for AI to be regulated, a bipartisan demand for AI to be regulated," Kashdan said. "And not only will they give up on trying to start states from stepping up but they'll recognize that this means they really need to get their act together and pass federal AI regulations." Efforts to regulate AI at the federal level are unlikely to go as far as consumer protection measures in the states. What's next: The battle over a moratorium is not over, said Chris MacKenzie, vice president of communications for Americans for Responsible Innovation.
