Bond conditions set for man accused in death of Southern University student
Isaiah Smith, 29, was arrested on criminal hazing charges after Wilson died and later bonded out of jail.
During the bond review for Smith on Monday, a judge informed him that he is not allowed to carry a firearm. He is not allowed to speak to any co-defendants in the case. In addition, Smith is not allowed to leave the state of Louisiana. Smith requested permission to leave Louisiana to attend a family member's funeral in California, but was denied that request.
His bond will be revoked if he violates any of these conditions.
Kyle Thurman, 25, was also scheduled for a bond review on Monday, June 2. He has yet to appear before a judge.
A third suspect, Caleb McCray, 23, had new bond conditions set for him on May 29, stating he must wear a phone tracker instead of an ankle monitor. He was ordered not to talk about the case or possess a gun. Meanwhile, the judge allowed him to leave the state. His next court appearance is Oct. 13.
McCray, Thurman and Smith were expelled by Omega Psi Phi.
Wilson was a 20-year-old SU junior and marching band member who died after being punched in the chest at an off-campus fraternity pledging ritual. Police said no one called 911 for help after he collapsed.
Louisiana bill that would mandate anti-hazing course for college organizations advances
Police at Newark airport rescue 2-year-old from luggage system, X-ray machine
Nadler demands congressional investigation into DHS detention of staffer
What is Shavuot? The Jewish festival that started hours after Boulder fire attack
Dixie Landin' Theme Park closes for this summer
Woman, 64, in US legally for 50 years is detained by ICE for 3 months
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Judge in Harvard funding lawsuit calls Trump administration's arguments ‘a bit mind-boggling'
Advertisement Harvard alumni rally outside a Boston court where Harvard University will argue against the Trump administration's funding cuts 'The consequences for that in terms of constitutional law are staggering,' Burroughs said. Harvard has argued the Trump administration violated its constitutional rights and that the cuts are a significant blow to critical scientific research. Michael Velchik, a Department of Justice attorney appearing on behalf of the government, argued that the government has the right to cancel Harvard's grants because of its determination that Harvard has failed to root out antisemitism on campus, which he said is a priority of the Trump administration. 'Harvard claims the government is anti-Harvard. I reject that,' Velchik said. 'The government is pro-Jewish students at Harvard. The government is pro-Jewish faculty at Harvard.' Burroughs, who said she is Jewish and agreed that there were some missteps on campus, pressed Velchik to connect the concerns about antisemitism with the cancellation of funds and why the administration could make wholesale cuts instead of making decisions grant-by-grant. Advertisement After Harvard publicly resisted the Trump administration's demands in April, The case has enormous consequences not just for Harvard — the university says the Steven Lehotsky, a lawyer representing Harvard, argued Monday that the government's termination of the university's research grants violated Harvard's First Amendment rights. He pointed to the Trump administration's Lehotsky said that the case is 'about the federal government's control over the inner-workings of America's oldest institution of higher education.' Harvard has also argued that the Trump administration skirted a legal process to cancel funding under Title VI of the Civil Rights of 1964, which prohibits discrimination 'on the basis of race, color, or national origin.' Lehotsky at one point quoted 'Sentence first—verdict afterwards,' a line from the Queen of Hearts in the book 'Alice's Adventures in Wonderland,' to illustrate how he believes the government took action before legally justifying its decisions. Advertisement The Trump administration knew that process was available to try and cancel funds, but chose not to follow it. Velchik, meanwhile, said that the government was not using the Title VI process in this case and argued that the administration had the authority under federal regulations regarding grants. Because of that, Velchik argued that the case should be tried in federal claims court as opposed to federal district court, which Burroughs sharply questioned. Burroughs is a familiar face for Harvard. She is presiding over the university's other high-profile case against the Trump administration, which challenges the government's efforts to bar Harvard from hosting international students. Burroughs has blocked those efforts until the case is decided, and the government has The judge also In a post on his social media network Truth Social, President Trump said Monday that Burroughs is 'a TOTAL DISASTER' and an 'automatic 'loss' for the People of our Country,' an example of Trump's Advertisement On Monday, Burroughs also heard from lawyers representing As the hearing wrapped up around noon, dozens of Harvard students, faculty, and alumni gathered outside of the John Joseph Moakley Courthouse in support of the university and its researchers. The rally was organized by the Crimson Courage, a group of Harvard alumni that has called on Harvard to Community organizer and Harvard alumnus Lew Finfer, who helped coordinate the protest, said the funding cuts not only have disastrous consequences for scientific research, but also for families whose lives were directly impacted by studies focused on cancer, Alzheimer's, and other diseases. 'Having family ... who have had cancer and died of cancer and have Alzheimer's, the fact that people are trying to do something about it — [the research] always feels personal, as it would to anyone if they heard heard about these things," Lew said. 'It's not just research,' Finfer added. It's people's lives.' James McAffrey, 22, a Harvard undergraduate who co-founded Advertisement 'I haven't had research funding cut. I'm not at risk of being deported,' he said Monday. 'Which is why I feel even more committed to speaking out … because there's so many of my peers that can't say what they think and that's not right in an America built on freedom of speech.' Aidan Ryan can be reached at
Los Angeles Times
4 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Harvard seeks billions in funding restored at a pivotal hearing in its standoff with Trump
BOSTON — Harvard University appeared in federal court Monday in a pivotal case in its battle with the Trump administration, as the storied institution argued the government illegally cut $2.6 billion in federal funding. President Trump's administration has battered the nation's oldest and wealthiest university with sanctions for months as it presses a series of demands on the Ivy League school, which it decries as a hotbed of liberalism and antisemitism. Harvard has resisted, and the lawsuit over the cuts to its research grants represents the primary challenge to the administration in a standoff that is being widely watched across higher education and beyond. A lawyer for Harvard, Steven Lehotsky, said at Monday's hearing the case is about the government trying to control the 'inner workings' of Harvard. The funding cuts, if not reversed, could lead to the loss of research, damaged careers and the closing of labs, he said. 'It's not about Harvard's conduct,' he said. 'It's about the government's conduct toward Harvard.' The case is before U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs, who is presiding over lawsuits brought by Harvard against the administration's efforts to keep it from hosting international students. In that case, she temporarily blocked the administration's efforts. At Monday's hearing, Harvard asked her to reverse a series of funding freezes. Such a ruling, if it stands, would revive Harvard's sprawling scientific and medical research operation and hundreds of projects that lost federal money. A lawyer for the government, Michael Velchik, said the Trump administration has authority to cancel the grants after concluding the funding did not align with its priorities, namely Trump's executive order combating antisemitism. He argued Harvard allowed antisemitism to flourish at the university following the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks on Israel, including protesters camped out on campus chanting antisemitic slogans as well attacks on Jewish students. 'Harvard claims the government is anti-Harvard. I reject that,' said Velchik, a Harvard alumnus. 'The government is pro-Jewish students at Harvard. The government is pro-Jewish faculty at Harvard.' Burroughs pushed back, questioning how the government could make 'ad-hoc' decisions to cancel grants and do so without offering evidence that any of the research is antisemitic. At one point, she called the government's assertions 'mind-boggling.' She also argued the government had provided 'no documentation, no procedure' to 'suss out' whether Harvard administrators 'have taken enough steps or haven't' to combat antisemitism. 'The consequences of that in terms of constitutional law are staggering,' she said. 'I don't think you can justify a contract action based on impermissible suppression of speech. Where do I have that wrong?' Velchik said the case comes down to the government's choosing how best to spend billions of dollars in research funding. Harvard's lawsuit accuses the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a series of demands from a federal antisemitism task force in April. A second lawsuit over the cuts filed by the American Association of University Professors and its Harvard faculty chapter has been consolidated with the university's suit. The task force's demands included sweeping changes related to campus protests, academics and admissions. For example, Harvard was told to audit the viewpoints of students and faculty and admit more students or hire new professors if the campus was found to lack diverse points of view. Harvard President Alan Garber says the university has made changes to combat antisemitism but said no government 'should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.' Monday's hearing ended without Burroughs issuing a ruling from the bench. A ruling is expected later in writing. Several dozen alumni from Harvard joined students and faculty to decry the effort to cut the federal funds, holding up signs reading 'Hands Off Harvard,' 'Strong USA Needs Strong Harvard' and 'Our Liberty Is Not For Sale.' Anurima Bhargava, who wrote the amicus brief on behalf of more than 12,000 fellow Harvard alumni in the case, said the graduates spoke up because 'they understand what is at stake here and what the end goal of the government is, to take away our ability to pursue the mission, the freedom and the values that have been the cornerstone of higher education.' Three Harvard researchers who lost their federal funding spoke about disruptions to the long-term impact of funding on cancer, cardiovascular diseases and other health conditions. They said the cuts could force researchers to go overseas to work. 'Unfortunately, the termination of this research work would mean the end of this progress and the implications are serious for the well-being of Americans and our children into the future,' said Walter Willett, a Harvard professor of epidemiology and nutrition who lost grants that funded long-term studies of men's and women's health. 'This is just one example of the arbitrary and capricious weaponization of taxpayer money that is undermining the health of Americans,' he said. The same day Harvard rejected the government's demands, Trump officials moved to freeze $2.2 billion in research grants. Education Secretary Linda McMahon declared in May that Harvard would no longer be eligible for new grants, and weeks later the administration began canceling contracts with Harvard. As Harvard fought the funding freeze in court, individual agencies began sending letters announcing the frozen research grants were being terminated. They cited a clause that allows grants to be scrapped if they no longer align with government policies. Harvard, which has the nation's largest endowment at $53 billion, has moved to self-fund some of its research, but warned it can't absorb the full cost of the federal cuts. In court filings, the school said the government 'fails to explain how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer, support veterans, and improve national security addresses antisemitism.' The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation and argues the government has wide discretion to cancel contracts for policy reasons. The research funding is only one front in Harvard's fight with the government. The Trump administration also has sought to prevent the school from hosting foreign students, and Trump has threatened to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status. Finally, last month, the Trump administration formally issued a finding that the school tolerated antisemitism — a step that eventually could jeopardize all of Harvard's federal funding, including federal student loans or grants. The penalty is typically referred to as a 'death sentence.' After Monday's hearing, Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, to attack Burroughs, calling her a 'TOTAL DISASTER.' Burroughs was appointed by former President Barack Obama. 'Harvard has $52 Billion Dollars sitting in the Bank, and yet they are anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America,' he wrote. 'Much of this money comes from the U.S.A., all to the detriment of other Schools, Colleges, and Institutions, and we are not going to allow this unfair situation to happen any longer.' Casey writes for the Associated Press.
Hamilton Spectator
4 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Canadian government considers criminalizing hate and terror symbols
OTTAWA—The Liberal government is weighing the criminalization of displaying terror and hate symbols, a potentially precedent-setting move in Canada that has prompted concerns about civil liberties. It's not yet clear if a possible ban would focus on specific symbols, like the swastika, or if it would broadly cover any symbols related to designated terror groups. And no final decision has yet been made on whether to go through with the Criminal Code reforms, which were being mulled by the Trudeau government prior to Prime Minister Mark Carney's ascent to the Liberal leadership and his victory in the spring election, according to a transition briefing to the minister of justice from March 2025 that was made public last week. During that campaign, Carney's Liberals, who are now preparing to introduce a crime bill this fall, committed to bail reforms, the criminalization of 'obstruction' and 'intimidation' outside of places of worship and other community spaces, among other things. Criminalizing hate and terror symbols, however, was not in the Liberal platform, even though it has been requested repeatedly by Jewish groups in Canada. In a statement to the Star, the Department of Justice confirmed the matter was still under consideration as the government looks at options for tackling a rising number of hate crimes, but it did not indicate what direction it was leaning towards. 'The Government of Canada takes the use of any hate symbols very seriously and remains committed to protecting everyone in Canada from hate and discrimination in all its forms,' spokesperson Ian McLeod said in a statement. 'This work is ongoing. Although no final decisions have been made regarding the criminalization of any specific symbols, we continue to consult with officials and stakeholders to ensure our approach reflects our commitment to safety and inclusivity.' Canada's Criminal Code already has provisions against 'hate propaganda,' including advocating for genocide, incitement of hatred and 'wilful' promotion of hatred or antisemitism, but the display of terror or hate symbols is not outlawed explicitly. The prospect of legislation to crack down on those symbols, however, has prompted questions about whether it might restrict freedom of expression, including in peaceful protests or artwork, for example. The swastika is commonly associated with Nazi Germany's antisemitic and racist violence, and is often used by far-right, white supremacist and other ideologically motivated extremist groups who have been gaining prevalence in Canada. Meanwhile, at pro-Palestinian demonstrations against the war in Gaza, there have been some instances of protesters holding signs comparing Israel's treatment of Palestinians to that of Nazi Germany's towards Jews, prompting rebukes from some Jewish and pro-Israel groups. There have also been documented instances of protesters waving the flags of Hamas and other militant groups that are on Canada's designated terror list. In 2024, a man was arrested and charged in Toronto after waving the flag of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, but the case was dropped because there was 'no reasonable prospect of conviction.' 'We're hopeful,' said Richard Robertson, the director of research and advocacy at B'nai Brith Canada, which has been calling for a ban on the swastika and the criminalization of displaying flags, emblems and symbols related to designated terror groups. 'Any efforts or considerations are welcome at this point.' Shane Martínez, a human rights lawyer who represented the Toronto protester, said such a move would be a political and hypocritical attack on pro-Palestine demonstrators and predicted it would immediately face legal challenges. 'At best, it's misguided, and at worst, it is an intentional effort to silence people, knowing that it violates their Charter rights,' Martínez said. The head of Toronto's police union said such legislation could give officers more clarity when policing protests, but said it should be accompanied by training. 'With the protests that have been going on, there's a lot of pressure and expectation on our members to be seizing certain items, if it's flags or other symbols that may be related to hate or terror organizations,' said Clayton Campbell, the president of the Toronto Police Association. 'And for our members, it's challenging as they can be confusing, right? Like, one flag, slightly adjusted may not be a terror symbol, may not be a hate flag. 'Anything that could help them do their jobs better would be good,' he said.
