Judge issues preliminary injunction against IU 'expressive activity' policy
A federal judge has blocked Indiana University's 'expressive activity' policy, issuing a preliminary injunction against the educational institution's 2024 rule on Thursday.
Protesters across the country, many of them college students, rallied in support of Palestine near the end of the 2024 school year. At protests on IU's Bloomington campus, police arrested 57 protesters at a pro-Palestine encampment following a last-minute rule amendment concerning temporary structures in Dunn Meadow that reversed a long-standing policy.
Later that year, in November, the university implemented a new policy that required prior approval for daytime campus protests and banned activities occurring between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana responded by filing suit on behalf of students, faculty members and others who wished to protest against the school in the future.
IU releases review of April protest activity and enforcement
According to the rule, an expressive activity can include protests, speeches, petitions and 'all other unapproved conduct and activities otherwise prohibited' by school policy or law. Plaintiffs argued that the new language restricted activity during nighttime hours even if it wasn't disruptive while university officials maintained that its police department was too short-staffed to allow for overnight protests.
Determining that the case would likely succeed in court and potentially violated the First Amendment, U.S. Southern District of Indiana Judge Richard L. Young ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
'In sum, the Policy likely burdens substantially more speech than necessary to further the University's interest in public safety and thus lacks narrow tailoring,' ruled Young.
'IU's policy would apply to activities such as peaceful candlelight vigils, silently holding a sign, or even wearing a t-shirt that protests world events. The First Amendment does not allow a governmental entity to prohibit all forms of expression during certain hours of the day. We're pleased that the Court agreed,' said Ken Falk, the ACLU of Indiana's legal director.
pidecision
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
6 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Chuck Schumer Protest: Democratic Officials Arrested at Senator's Office
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Pro-Palestinian protesters, including two sitting Democratic New York officials, were arrested by police outside the offices of New York Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand on Friday afternoon, according to video posted to social media. Newsweek reached out to the offices of Schumer, Gillibrand, New York State Assembly Member Claire Valdez, New York City Councilor Tiffany Cabán, and the New York Police Department via email for comment. Why It Matters A humanitarian crisis in Gaza has started to turn the tide in the politics of the Israel-Hamas conflict. Following the Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023, many officials unequivocally backed Israel and its response; however, as images and video of mass starvation started to reach the West, many have questioned Israel and have spoken out in support of the Palestinian people. Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, one of President Donald Trump's allies, wrote on X this week that "genocide, humanitarian crisis, and starvation" are happening in Gaza. France last week announced that it plans to formally recognize a Palestinian state, and the United Kingdom threatened to do the same unless Israel agreed to take "substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza." Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney also announced his country will recognize a Palestinian state, but Trump has made clear he does not intend to do the same. Pro-Palestinian demonstrators protest in the lobby of a Midtown Manhattan building that houses the offices of the two U.S. Democratic Senators from New York on August 1, 2025, in New York City. Pro-Palestinian demonstrators protest in the lobby of a Midtown Manhattan building that houses the offices of the two U.S. Democratic Senators from New York on August 1, 2025, in New York City. Charly Triballeau/AFP via Getty Images What To Know Protesters from the group Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) wearing shirts that said "Let Gaza Live" gathered in the lobby of the Manhattan office building that houses Schumer and Gillibrand's offices. The protesters, numbering in the dozens, sat on the floor with signs that read "Let Aid in NOW," "Never Again is Now," "Stop Arming Israel," and "Jews to Schumer: STOP Starving Gaza." They also chanted "Free Palestine" and "stop the genocide." As police started to detain the protesters with plastic zip ties, the protesters started chanting "Let Gaza Live" and "Stop Starving Gaza." Why Was There a Protest at Chuck Schumer's Office? The protesters gathered in response to the Senate's rejection of two resolutions introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an Independent, to block an arms deal to Israel. A majority of Democratic senators voted in support of the resolution, but neither Schumer, the Senate minority leader, nor Gillibrand joined them. One resolution that would block the sale of assault rifles to Israel received support from 27 Democrats, while one to block the sale of more than $675 million in arms sales received support from 24 Democrats. This marked record support from Democrats for the resolutions is an indication of shifting public opinion on Israel and the ongoing conflict with Hamas. HAPPENING NOW: Over 150 Jews and people of conscience are staging a sit-in at the offices of Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand in New York City to demand that the U.S. stop starving Gaza immediately. — Jewish Voice for Peace (@jvplive) August 1, 2025 State Assembly Member, City Councilor Arrested at Protest New York City Council Member Tiffany Cabán was among those detained at Schumer's office, with video capturing the moment police escorted her from the building. A reporter on the scene asked Cabán why she was choosing "today" to protest, to which she said: "Stop starving Gaza. The U.S. is paying for the starvation and bombing of Gaza. It's got to stop." The same video appeared to show New York State Assembly Member Claire Valdez escorted from the building, also with her hands tied behind her back. The NYPD told Newsweek that as of 3:20 p.m. ET, they had recorded 26 arrests but were not able to confirm that Cabán and Valdez were among those arrested. NYPD officers arrest Pro-Palestinian demonstrators outside the offices of Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand in Manhattan on August 1, 2025. NYPD officers arrest Pro-Palestinian demonstrators outside the offices of Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand in Manhattan on August 1, 2025. Charly Triballeau/AFP via Getty Images What Has Chuck Schumer Said About the Israel-Palestine Conflict? Schumer, the highest-ranking Jewish official in the U.S. government, said in March 2024 that the "fourth major obstacle to peace is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu." "As a lifelong supporter of Israel, it has become clear to me, the Netanyahu coalition no longer fits the needs of Israel after October 7. The world has changed—radically—since then, and the Israeli people are being stifled right now by a governing vision that is stuck in the past," Schumer said. "Five months into this conflict, it is clear that Israelis need to take stock of the situation and ask, must we change course. At this critical juncture, I believe a new election is the only way to allow for a healthy and open decision-making process about the future of Israel," he added. However, Schumer has faced backlash for inviting Netanyahu to address Congress in 2024, and earlier this year for saying that his job is to "keep the left pro-Israel." He told a New York Times columnist in March that "the greatest danger to Israel, long-term, is if you lose half of America," and has insisted that his caucus "is overwhelmingly pro-Israel." What People Are Saying A White House official told Newsweek: "As the President stated, he would be rewarding Hamas if he recognizes a Palestinian state, and he doesn't think they should be rewarded. So he is not going to do that. President Trump's focus is on getting people fed." Jewish Voice for Peace, on X: "Senators Schumer and Gillibrand, it's time for you to stop the blank check for Israeli genocide and forced starvation of Palestinians. As Jews, many of our own families were murdered or starved to death in a different genocide. We know the price of silence. We will not be silent now. STOP ARMING ISRAEL. STOP STARVING GAZA." President Donald Trump told reporters on Monday that there was "real starvation" in Gaza, adding, "I see it, and you can't fake that." He promised the U.S. would do more to address it.
Hamilton Spectator
35 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Should we stay or should we go? In Alberta, the fight now is over which referendum question to ask
To side with Canada or to split, that is the question — or rather, the questions. As Alberta continues to flirt with separation, two different but related questions have emerged as potential contenders to go before the public in a referendum. Both would need to overcome considerable hurdles — including a judicial green light for one, and the gathering of hundreds of thousands of signatures for both — before that happens, but both have been submitted to Elections Alberta by interested citizens who'd like to see the question of separatism put to bed once and for all. Their preferred outcomes, however, are very different. The two questions reflect two very different visions for Alberta's future, represented by their authors — one a former Progressive Conservative deputy premier who has made no bones about his desire to stay in Canada, the other a leader of an avowed separatist group desperate to chart a path out of Confederation. When separatist rumblings grew louder after the federal Liberals were re-elected this spring, at least among a small but vocal segment of Albertans, a referendum began to seem inevitable, says Thomas Lukaszuk, the former longtime PC MLA and government minister who has been sharply critical of the more ideological turn Alberta's conservatives have taken under Premier Danielle Smith. The latter has made a political career out of railing against Ottawa and providing a sympathetic ear to ideas outside the mainstream. She recently told media she was willing to risk a referendum to give the separatist movement an 'outlet' — particularly one that wasn't a new rival party. So Lukaszuk moved to beat the separatists at their own game. Under an initiative he is calling 'Alberta Forever Canada,' the question he put to Elections Alberta — 'Do you agree that Alberta should remain in Canada?' — was meant as an unabashed pro-Canadian statement and an attempt to steal his opponent's thunder. 'It was important to me that it's a positive question, that it doesn't promote separatism,' he said. The question was approved by Elections Alberta and this week, he was given the green light to begin collecting the almost 300,000 signatures required to have his query considered by lawmakers, potentially as a referendum question. But also as of this week, there's a second question on the table. This one was proposed by Mitch Sylvestre, the head of the Alberta Prosperity Project, one of the province's new independence groups: 'Do you agree that the Province of Alberta shall become a sovereign country and cease to be a province in Canada?' The group's lawyer called it 'fundamentally silly' that someone had tried to to get a pro-Canada question out of the gates first. Lukaszuk is 'making a fool of himself and making a mockery of the entire process,' Jeffrey Rath said in an interview with the Star. Rath remains resolute that his question will prevail. But both questions still have a long road to travel before they get anywhere near a ballot. It's not even clear whether this new, second question will get the go-ahead for its advocates to start collecting signatures, as it has to get reviewed by the courts first. But if it does, it will have to clear a lower bar than the first. (Yes, we know this is getting confusing.) Here are answers to five of the biggest questions about what, exactly, is going on in Alberta right now: Why are Albertans putting forward referendum questions all of a sudden ? Alberta has a law that allows citizens to pitch referendum questions ' on matters of widespread concern ' by filling out a form and paying $500. (This has arguably been a loophole that has allowed Smith to walk a line on separation — while she has maintained she is not personally in favour of leaving Canada, she has also said she would not stand in the way of a citizen-led effort, and in fact, would make it easier for one to happen.) While polling suggests Albertans in general are not in favour of leaving Canada, there are surveys to suggest United Conservative Party voters — Smith's base — are much more likely to be supportive of the idea. The Citizen Initiative Act was introduced back when Jason Kenney was premier; he argued it would give people 'the power to hold this and future governments to account if we do not keep our commitment to stand up for Albertans.' But as Lukazuk puts it, this is the first time the law is being used and, as a result, Elections Alberta is building the plane in the sky. There are lots of questions about how things may play out. While anyone can propose a question, it must be vetted by Elections Alberta to make sure its clear and, the oversight body says, does not run afoul of the Constitution. If Elections Alberta signs off, then the citizen in question must gather hundreds of thousands of signatures before their question gets considered for a potential referendum to make sure it's an issue that has the support of a large proportion of Albertans. Wait, why is only the second question getting reviewed by the courts? While Elections Alberta signed off on the first question and sent it off to the petition stage, the second question — the more explicitly separatist one — has been sent to the courts to ask for an opinion. That's because the first question, which is pro-Canada, is asking Albertans to confirm their support for the status quo, while the second question could have real ripple effects on how they relate to the rest of Canada. Gordon McClure, Alberta's chief electoral officer, says he has a duty to make sure the question doesn't violate the Constitution. In a statement, he said he's asking the court to provide on opinion on whether this question might infringe on protections such as mobility, democratic and treaty rights before it goes any further. 'This is a serious and significant question, with the potential to have profound impact on all Albertans,' Elections Alberta noted in a news release. But Rath, the legal counsel for the Alberta Prosperity Project, strongly disagrees that this step is required. He says he's working on an application to have Elections Alberta's request struck, calling it 'patently unreasonable.' In the event that Albertans vote to separate, there is a legal process by which the province could begin negotiations to leave, he says. In the meantime, Rath believes, there's no harm in asking. 'You can't see on its face how simply asking a question and getting signatures on a petition would offend the Constitution, right?' he said. Alberta's leadership is also upset. In a post on X, Smith said Albertans have a right to participate in the citizen initiative process and 'shouldn't be slowed down by bureaucratic red tape or court applications.' But so far, Elections Alberta is unmoved. In a further statement, McClure noted that the chief electoral officer is non-partisan and independent, and that the law that allows citizen to ask questions also explicitly requires that those questions not 'contravene' the Constitution — so he's just doing his job. How many signatures would these questions have to get? Because of a recent change to Alberta's law, the two questions actually face different standards. The pro-Canada question will have to get 293,976 signatures over 90 days to pass to the next stage. That's 10 per cent of the people who could have voted in the last election. In order to do this, Lukaszuk says his organization has 3,000 volunteers ready to gather signatures, and he plans to have people at major festivals, rodeos and farmers markets across the province. An RV wrapped in a Canadian flag will soon be cross-crossing the province to get more. 'We will be using any means possible to give Albertans a chance to sign this petition,' he said. But the second question — if approved — would only have to get 177,732 signatures, or 10 per cent of the people who actually voted in the last election. (That's only about 60 per cent of what its competitor requires.) It would also get an extra month to accomplish the task. The reason is that the bill Alberta introduced to make it easier for people to get referendums rolling came into force after Lukaszuk proposed his question, but before the pro-separatism question was filed. While Lukaszuk says he is confident he can get enough signatures, he said he may challenge the rules anyway, in the interest of fairness. How much does the wording of the question actually matter? Whether you're talking the Quebec referendums or Brexit, the exact wording of a question put to the citizenry is always a matter of debate, notes Daniel Béland, the director of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada. Compared to referendum questions asked in Quebec, Albertans at least will have the advantage of brevity either way. (The 1980 Quebec referendum question ran to a whopping 84 words in English.) The fact that the pro-Canada side got out of the gate first was a clever tactic, Béland says, but in the end it may be hard for voters to separate the questions from who proposed them, as each question-asker has a clear bias. 'I think the source of the question, who came up with the question, will affect the way the question is perceived,' he said. Likewise, the dueling questions present a political challenge for Smith and other politicians, in terms of whether they're seen to favour one over the other. But in either case, he says, past referendums have shown that the campaigns will matter. What happens next? The pro-separation question must wait for a ruling from the courts and then a final decision by Elections Alberta, which will determine if it will proceed to the petition stage. Meanwhile, Alberta Forever Canada is getting ready to hit the road to drum up signatures for the pro-Canada side. So are we heading for a showdown between dueling petitions? It's not clear. According to rules laid out on the Elections Alberta website, if a citizen referendum or vote fails, there can't be another on the same or 'substantially similar' topic for the next five years. Lukaszuk argues this means that if his petition is successful, it must either by adopted as policy or put to a referendum — halting the second question in its tracks. 'So this talk of referendum will end in Alberta for at least five years,' he said. Rath disagrees that a decision on the pro-Canada question has the power to knock his question out of consideration. He's looking to federal law here. After the Quebec referendums — both of which featured lengthier questions that some argued were a bit vague — the federal government passed what's known as the Clarity Act, which laid out ground rules for any future attempts by provinces to leave the country. It says that any future questions on leaving Canada must be 'clear and unambiguous.' Rath argues that his rivals' question isn't pointed enough. In merely affirming the status quo — the desire to remain in Canada — he says the question isn't obviously about separation — and that makes his question meaningfully different. 'That's the only legal way to ask the question,' Rath said of his own wording. 'Otherwise the question might as well be, 'Do you believe in Santa Claus?'' Lukaszuk counters that his question is up to snuff, as it's 'clear, not ambiguous, and asks for either a yes or no answer.' In any case, from his vantage point in Quebec, Beland notes that referendum campaigns tend to take on a life of their own. 'I'm not saying that Danielle Smith is the next David Cameron, but there are actually striking similarities between Cameron and Smith in many ways,' he said, referring to the former British prime minister who held a referendum that led to the United Kingdom quitting the European Union, even though he was personally opposed to the proposal. 'You have a party and you have a faction within your party that wants something,' he added. 'They are playing with fire.'
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Crypto donations flood Trump's super PAC
The crypto industry has donated more than $26 million to President Trump this year, according to newly-filed campaign finance disclosures. Why it matters: The massive infusion underscores how Trump and the crypto industry have been cozying up to one another. The background: The Trump administration came into office promising to deliver policies that would make the industry grow. So far he has delivered. Trump signed the first federal law on stablecoins, the GENIUS Act. He's given Congress a deadline to pass the CLARITY Act, which would create the first comprehensive rules for the crypto industry. He announced a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve shortly after coming into office. Just this week, he put out a 160-page report on steps his administration can take to grow the industry, protect its open-source spirit and defend user privacy. Zoom out: Trump has been criticized for profiting on the growth of the industry he's used policy to accelerate, including questions of conflict-of-interest. The Trump family is deep in everything from stablecoins, meme coins and NFTs to Bitcoin mining. Big crypto industry donors to the pro-Trump MAGA Inc. super PAC during the first half of 2025 include: which gave $5 million. Investors Marc Andreesen and his business partner, Ben Horowitz, who gave $3 million apiece. Cryptocurrency bank Gemini Trust, which donated nearly $3 million. Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, the company's founders, both contributed around $500,000 apiece. Crypto platform Ondo Finance, which donated $2.1 million.
