Judge temporarily blocks DEI ban in Mississippi
'This Court finds that each day the statute remains unclarified, undefined, and under a threat of open interpretation, exacerbates the suppression of protected speech,' Judge Henry Wingate said in his ruling.
The plaintiffs included the Mississippi Educators Association, which represents public school teachers, as well as student organizations and faculty at several state colleges, including Jackson State University, a historically Black institution. They argued that the Mississippi law had chilled free expression and forced them to cancel previously scheduled DEI initiatives or training.
The law prohibits the promotion of 'divisive concepts' or programming that 'increases awareness or understanding of race, sex, color, gender identity, sexual orientation, or national origin.'
In his ruling, Wingate argued that the law was unclear and could be construed to be enforced unevenly.
'Institutions have spent the intervening months attempting to interpret and implement the statute, often erring on the side of caution by canceling or defunding programming that arguably falls within its prohibitions. This prolonged period of uncertainty has deepened the chilling effect,' Wingate wrote.
The parties are due back in court on July 23 for a hearing on a possible preliminary injunction, which would be a stronger block on the law.
Mississippi is one of at least 16 states that have passed bills since 2023 restricting DEI in some way, including by targeting diversity statements, DEI-related courses, or mandatory training.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
35 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Can a county fire a sheriff behind closed doors? Advocacy group threatens to sue for access
An open government advocacy group is threatening to sue a California county that is preparing to discuss firing its elected sheriff behind closed doors. San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus, who serves one of the wealthiest communities in the country, has faced calls for her removal since an explosive November report from a retired judge found that she likely violated the county's policy on nepotism and conflicting relationships. The report alleged that, by 2024, Corpus had 'relinquished control' of the department to a subordinate. That led to a ballot measure last year that voters passed to empower the county Board of Supervisors to remove her from office, which they voted to do in June. Corpus appealed, leading to the scheduled August evidentiary hearing. As part of the removal proceedings, Corpus' legal team asked that the removal hearing take place behind closed doors. 'The county should decline,' wrote First Amendment Coalition attorney Aaron Field in a letter to the county Board of Supervisors. 'Barring the press and public from the removal hearing as Sheriff Corpus has requested would violate the First Amendment right of access to public proceedings, undermine a panoply of compelling public interests in administering the removal hearing transparently and needlessly shut San Mateo citizens out of a key phase of a process.' The hearing is scheduled to begin Aug. 18 and is expected to last about 10 days. CalMatters originally filed a request to open the June removal hearing to the public, a request that was denied. The First Amendment Coalition is making the same request for the August removal hearing. Corpus' removal — and her fight against it, including unsuccessfully filing for a restraining order to stop the proceedings — has roiled her department and the community for nearly a year. Several cities in her county have given her administration no-confidence votes, and the unions representing both her deputies and her sergeants have called for her removal. A San Mateo County spokesperson said the county had received the First Amendment Coalition's letter and would announce a decision soon. 'The county has consistently expressed its view that this should be a fully transparent process, including having the August appeal hearing for her removal from office be open,' said San Mateo County spokesperson Effie Milionis Verducci. 'However, the sheriff has blocked it.' The sheriff's department is still in turmoil, most recently when Corpus put a San Mateo County sheriff's sergeant on leave. That sergeant had testified extensively in a second county investigation into Corpus. The union representing San Mateo County Sheriff's sergeants objected, alleging the sergeant was put on leave as retaliation for his testimony. Corpus denied that her actions had anything to do with the report in a statement posted to the sheriff's office website. 'His temporary administrative leave is entirely unrelated to any comments or cooperation he may have provided in the Keker report,' Corpus said in the statement. Duara writes for CalMatters, where the article first appeared.
The Hill
5 hours ago
- The Hill
Why Columbia gave in to Trump's extortion
On July 23, Columbia University entered into a resolution agreement with the federal government to settle claims that it didn't do enough to prevent harassment of Jewish students. Columbia promised to pay $200 million in fines, plus $21 million to settle employment discrimination claims. It also agreed to a raft of policy changes, pledging to further support Jewish students, to comply with laws banning consideration of race in admissions and hiring, to provide the government with admissions data and disciplinary information about international students, to ensure its Middle Eastern Studies programs are 'comprehensive and balanced' and to roll back DEI efforts. In return, the government agreed to close multiple civil rights investigations, release most of the $400 million in previously frozen research funding and consider future grant proposals from Columbia 'without disfavored treatment.' Earlier this month, Paramount agreed to pay $16 million to settle President Trump's claims about prejudicial editing of a CBS News '60 Minutes' interview with Vice President Kamala Harris. Though many legal experts considered the suit baseless, Paramount executives feared it might become an obstacle to a multi-billion dollar sale of the company requiring approval by the Federal Trade Commission. That approval finally came, in a two-to-one vote, on July 24. In March, Paul Weiss, one of the country's top law firms, agreed to represent clients without regard to their political affiliation and perform $40 million in pro bono work for causes supported by Trump in return for termination of a manifestly illegal and financially crippling executive order restricting the firm's security clearances and barring its lawyers from federal buildings. The firm's offense? Primarily that it had a former partner who, while serving as a Manhattan prosecutor, had overseen the criminal investigation into Trump and then written a book urging his prosecution. These three cases demonstrate that, even in long-established democracies, a leader willing to ignore legal constraints and social norms ' has the cards,' as Trump would say, to settle personal scores with his long list of enemies, using one pretext or another. Columbia, Paramount and Paul Weiss could have all chosen to fight the Trump administration in court. Confronted with demands restricting its autonomy and authority, Harvard decided to sue. Rupert Murdoch, owner of the Wall Street Journal, seems inclined to fight Trump's lawsuit over his newspaper's reporting on Trump's birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein. Faced with executive orders similar to the one directed at Paul Weiss, four other law firms chose to litigate rather than capitulate. But Columbia lacks Harvard's resources. The Wall Street Journal is not for sale. The law firms that sued did not confront as grave a risk to their billings as Paul Weiss and the eight other firms who struck similar deals. Critics have praised those choosing to fight and pilloried those choosing to settle. It is worth noting, however, that lawsuits can turn into settlements and settlements can collapse into lawsuits. Also, in these three cases, those deciding to fight cannot be made whole. Lawsuits can stop some administration tactics but cannot stop them all. Suing may prompt Trump to double down on penalties, but may also serve as a bargaining chip in settlement talks. And settlements, especially with the Trump administration, can serve as the prelude to more demands. As Claire Shipman, Columbia's interim president, put it, 'The desire for a simple narrative: capitulation versus courage, or talking versus fighting' ignores the reality 'that real-life situations are deeply complex.' No tactic will immunize a university, media corporation or law firm from a government willing to color this far outside the lines. And individual institutions have no pathway to protect the rule of law against a government willing to ignore it. Columbia's settlement does set a dangerous precedent. As Joseph Slaughter, a Columbia faculty member, stated, the agreement normalizes 'political interference in teaching, research and the pursuit of truth.' The administration is already using the settlement as a template for negotiations with other universities, including Harvard, Cornell, Duke, Northwestern and Brown. In our view, Columbia — which cannot survive as a research university without substantial funding from the federal government — had little choice but to cut a deal. Harvard may yet come to the same conclusion. It has won some short-term victories and will likely win more. But even if the university wins every case it brings, it cannot compel the government to award it future grants, issue visas to foreign nationals seeking to study or work at Harvard or block every perversely creative form of intimidation the administration dreams up. So even when it loses in court, the Trump administration still wins. Its goal is not just to intimidate its direct targets, but the sectors the targets represent: higher education, the media and law firms. These are the mainstays of the civil society of any democracy. Not coincidentally, they also house many of the president's most visible critics. Colleges and universities that care about their research funding, or fear the burdens of trumped-up civil rights investigations, must think twice about pursuing any action likely to incur the administration's ire. For this reason, many of them are already engaging in ' anticipatory obedience ' — terminating DEI programs, mandating tougher punishments for campus protesters and shying away from public statements on sensitive issues. As U.S. District Judge Richard Leon wrote when striking down Trump's executive order against the law firm WilmerHale, 'the order shouts through a bullhorn: If you take on causes disfavored by President Trump, you will be punished!' Law firms are listening, and even though those that sue are winning, a growing number are declining to take cases likely to upset the Justice Department, which is on the verge of becoming on a wholly owned subsidiary of the Trump Organization. And as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression has observed, Paramount's settlement in the '60 Minutes' case sends a 'chilling message to journalists everywhere.' Authoritarian governments routinely seek to undermine civil society, but strong popular opposition can force a change in behavior. Most Americans disapprove of Trump's assault on higher education and the legal system, but they can do more to make their voices heard — in the organizations they support, with their elected representatives and, of course, at the ballot box.
Axios
5 hours ago
- Axios
What to do when you're a Trump target, corporate edition
In an instant, a company can get caught in the crosshairs of a Truth Social post from President Trump, and suddenly that business is on the hook for changing its flagship product, brand name, supply chain — or else. Why it matters: These posts can throw businesses off course by threatening their revenue streams and confusing their employees and customers. The big picture: Business leaders have developed coping strategies in response. Here's what works (and what doesn't): Don't lash out. Companies are a lot more careful about being publicly critical of this administration. Do meet privately. The savviest CEOs "don't humiliate Trump, they talk with him privately," says Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a professor at the Yale School of Management. Also helpful: Saying nice things about the president publicly. Do something that looks like appeasement. Get out in front of the White House by taking steps to please Trump — ditching DEI, announcing new factories or making approving statements. "Giving the White House a win on something has forever been a good strategy," says Michael Robinson, CEO of the Montgomery Strategies Group, a strategic communications and public affairs firm. And it is particularly true in this administration. "Let them take the victory lap," he says. Where it stands: Trump has made a habit of front-running corporate announcements or forcing the hand of some of America's largest companies, whether on social media or through sweeping proclamations and executive orders. He's declared the arrival of cane-sugar Coca-Cola, demanded the Washington Commanders change their name and taken credit for Apple's re-shoring announcement. "Every company is just one Truth Social post away from being thrown into the political crosshairs," Robinson tells Axios. "I've known three generations of CEOs. This is the toughest administration to work with," Sonnenfeld says. Between the lines: There's been building frustration and resentment among businesses, particularly over how erratically tariff policy has unfolded, according to a senior consultant who asked to be anonymous because the consultant represents multiple companies at the White House. There's a growing belief that negotiations with the administration don't hinge on business imperatives, but are instead "all about quid pro quo." "There's very little policy or substantive discussions happening, two issues that matter most for many businesses." Friction point: The transactional, deal-making nature of this administration is chipping away at corporate reputation and trust. For example, CBS says the decision to end " The Colbert Show" can be attributed to financials. Others say it's actually a way to appease the administration — and regulators — ahead of its parent company's merger with Skydance Media. Reality check: This isn't a new strategy — companies have long tried to please the White House. Administrations have picked winners and losers before — the Biden administration favored labor unions, for example, and put roadblocks up in front of the crypto industry. The other side: The only factor guiding the President is what's in the best interest of Americans, says Kush Desai, a White House spokesman. "The Administration is working hand in glove with the private sector to deliver for the American people. American companies voluntarily dropping artificial ingredients, ending racist DEI policies, and investing in American manufacturing is reflective of how this close cooperation is delivering mutually beneficial wins." Zoom out: It's one thing for a president to make asks of companies, but this has been going further — with a White House delving into minutiae and issuing explicit threats. That's particularly challenging for small companies, says Peter Cohan, a management professor at Babson College who has been interviewing executives on how they're dealing with tariffs. "Most businesses can't get to the White House."
