糖心Vlog

The 糖心Vlogand 糖心Vlogof Alaska have filed an amicus in support of Tupe Smith, a woman born in American Samoa who now lives in Whittier, Alaska charged with falsely affirming that she was a U.S. citizen when she registered to vote. But Tupe Smith is not an 鈥渁lien鈥� under the law. People, like her, born in the U.S. territory of American Samoa are the only remaining individuals recognized as 鈥渘on-citizen U.S. nationals,鈥� a unique status that falls short of 鈥渃itizen鈥� but nonetheless recognizes that American Samoa has been part of the United States for over 125 years.   All evidence indicates that Ms. Smith believed that, as a non-citizen U.S. national, she was eligible to vote in local elections when she registered to vote. In fact, local election officials encouraged her to check the box labeled "U.S. citizen" when she registered, given the fact that there was no option for "U.S. national."   Our amicus brief urges Alaska鈥檚 Court of Appeals to dismiss Tupe Smith鈥檚 indictment because of well-settled principles that election-crime statutes should be construed to avoid punishing innocent mistakes. Separately, we warn that upholding a different view of the law would make Alaska an outlier among the states.

Coalition on Homelessness is a challenge to the City and County of San Francisco鈥檚 efforts to criminalize homelessness through an array of unconstitutional practices, including confiscating and destroying the personal property of unhoused people without adequate notice or due process, and citing and arresting unhoused people for sleeping in public.

The National Institute of Health (NIH) abruptly cancelled millions of dollars in grants for research that it claims are related to 鈥済ender identity鈥� or 鈥渄iversity, equity and inclusion.鈥� The 糖心Vlogsued.

CONCORD, N.H. 鈥� In a victory for students, parents, and educators, a federal judge has granted a request for a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the U.S. Department of Education鈥檚 (ED) February 14, 2025, 鈥淒ear Colleague鈥� letter against the plaintiffs, their members, and any entity that employs, contracts with, or works with one or more of Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs鈥� member. The court鈥檚 ruling blocks ED鈥檚 unprecedented and unlawful attempt to restrict discussions and programs on diversity, equity, and inclusion in educational institutions, and its threat to withhold federal funding for engaging in such efforts. The Dear Colleague Letter鈥檚 directive contradicts long-standing legal protections for academic freedom and violates the constitutional rights of students and educators by imposing vague and coercive restrictions on curriculums and programs. The preliminary injunction prevents ED from enforcing the directive while litigation continues, ensuring that schools can continue their educational mission without fear of federal retaliation. 鈥淎cross the country educators do everything in their power to support every student, ensuring each feels safe, seen, and is prepared for the future. Today鈥檚 ruling allows educators and schools to continue to be guided by what鈥檚 best for students, not by the threat of illegal restrictions and punishment. The fact is that Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and Linda McMahon are using politically motivated attacks and harmful and vague directives to stifle speech and erase critical lessons to attack public education, as they work to dismantle public schools. This is why educators, parents, and community leaders are organizing, mobilizing, and using every tool available to protect our students and their futures,鈥� said National Education Association President Becky Pringle. 鈥淲hile this interim agreement does not confirm the Department's motives, we believe it should mark the beginning of a permanent withdrawal from the assault on teaching and learning. The Department鈥檚 attempt to punish schools for acknowledging diversity, equity and inclusion is not only unconstitutional, but it鈥檚 also extremely dangerous -- and functions as a direct misalignment with what we know to be just and future forward. Today鈥檚 decision is a critical step toward protecting the freedom to teach, and the freedom to learn,鈥� said Sharif El-Mekki, Center for Black Educator Development CEO & founder. 鈥淭oday鈥檚 ruling is a victory for students, educators, and the fundamental principles of academic freedom. Every student deserves an education that reflects the full diversity of our society, free from political interference,鈥� said Sarah Hinger, deputy director of the 糖心VlogRacial Justice Program. 鈥淭he federal government has no authority to dictate what schools can and cannot teach to serve its own agenda, and this ruling is an important step in reaffirming that.鈥� Gilles Bissonnette, legal director of the 糖心Vlogof New Hampshire, said, 鈥淭he court's ruling today is a victory for academic freedom, the free speech rights of educators, and for New Hampshire students who have a right to an inclusive education free from censorship. Every student, both in the Granite State and across the country, deserves to feel seen, heard, and connected in school - and that can't happen when classroom censorship laws and policies are allowed to stand." On March 5, the 糖心Vlog, the 糖心Vlogof New Hampshire, the 糖心Vlogof Massachusetts, the National Education Association (NEA), and the National Education Association鈥揘ew Hampshire, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in New Hampshire, against ED. Also joining the case as plaintiff is the Center for Black Educator Development. Plaintiffs represented in the lawsuit against ED have said they鈥檝e felt like the 鈥淒ear Colleague Letter鈥� instigated a 鈥渨itch hunt鈥� against them. Teachers who have dedicated their lives to helping every student grow to their full potential have been in fear of losing their jobs and teaching licenses if they do not severely restrict what they and their students say and do in their classrooms. The lawsuit challenges ED鈥檚 directive on multiple legal grounds. Specifically, the lawsuit argues that ED has overstepped its authority by imposing unfounded and vague legal restrictions that violate due process and the First Amendment; limiting academic freedom and restricting educators鈥� ability to teach and students鈥� right to learn; and unlawfully dictating curriculum and educational programs, exceeding its legal mandate. The case will now proceed as the court considers whether to permanently block the Department鈥檚 directive. The court鈥檚 decision can be found here. A copy of the lawsuit can be found here.