ACLU RI Update! Smithfield School District! RI Latino Arts on Gender Ideology!
Settlement Reached In Smithfield School District
Social Media Censorship Lawsuit
The ACLU of Rhode Island today announced the favorable settlement of a federal lawsuit that challenged, as a violation of the First Amendment, Smithfield School District’s actions in blocking a local school critic from the official X (formerly Twitter) accounts of the district and the school district superintendent. As a result of the settlement, the school district has agreed to unblock all individuals from the official X accounts and make both accounts public.
The lawsuit was filed less than a month ago by ACLU of Rhode Island cooperating attorneys David Cass and Lynette Labinger on behalf of Smithfield resident Daniel Mayer. Mayer had regularly viewed and interacted with Superintendent Dawn Bartz’s X account page to stay informed about issues that Bartz addressed in her official capacity. Last August, his X account was blocked from following and viewing her posts after he advocated for Bartz’s resignation. Since then, both Bartz and the school district changed their X accounts to require all people to seek approval in order to gain access to them.
Under the joint stipulation dismissing the lawsuit, the school district:
- Acknowledges that the plaintiff and all other accounts that the school district had previously banned from @SmithfieldSuper and @SmithfieldSchls X pages have now been unblocked;
- Agrees that no other users will be blocked from @SmithfieldSuper and @SmithfieldSchls X accounts “based on First Amendment-protected viewpoints expressed”;
- Agrees that the school district will no longer require pre-approval for people to gain access to @SmithfieldSuper and @SmithfieldSchls X accounts; and
- Will pay $12,000 in attorneys’ fees and court costs.
The lawsuit argued that the censorship violated Mayer’s First Amendment rights “to speak and to petition the government for redress of grievances.” Both accounts are used to announce and describe school district policies and office operations; to share content produced for the town’s schools; and to communicate with constituents. The lawsuit noted that as official accounts of the school district, access to them cannot be limited based on the identity or viewpoint of the individual seeking access.
ACLU cooperating attorney Cass said today: “Blocking a constituent from expressing their opinions on the basis of their identity or viewpoint undermines their fundamental First Amendment right to speak and to petition the government for redress of grievances. Thankfully, with the assistance of counsel for the Smithfield School Committee, we were able to achieve a quick resolution to the constitutionally inappropriate social media limitations that had been imposed by the Smithfield School Department and Superintendent.”
complaint_-_mayer_v._smithfield_filed
R.I. Latino Arts Argues in Court That “Gender Ideology” Is Still Unconstitutionally Penalized by National Endowment for the Arts
Group asks court to strike down grant restrictions on various legal grounds
Days after the ACLU of RI requested a preliminary injunction in a separate federal lawsuit on behalf of domestic violence coalitions challenging new federal grant restrictions, the ACLU filed a motion for summary judgment late Monday on behalf of four arts organizations, arguing that the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is violating the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and Administrative Procedure Act in its implementation of an executive order that prohibits federal funding for grants that promote “gender ideology.” If the ACLU’s motion is granted, the suit could be resolved without trial.
The motion, filed in U.S. District Court in Rhode Island, comes after the NEA admitted that it would judge projects based on whether they “promote” what the government deems to be “gender ideology” and after it reinstated a requirement that grant applicants agree to abide by all other executive orders when applying for a grant.
The suit was first filed in March on behalf of Rhode Island Latino Arts and three other arts organizations after the NEA began requiring applicants to attest that they would not promote so-called “gender ideology” in order to be eligible for funding, and blocked any projects that were deemed to do so from getting an award. In immediate response to the litigation, the NEA paused the “gender ideology” certification requirement. Shortly thereafter, the court held that the NEA’s decision to make any project that promotes “gender ideology” ineligible for funds likely violated the First Amendment and exceeded its statutory authority, but held off issuing an injunction in order to give the agency time to decide whether and how it would impose the ban.
More recently, however, the NEA reinstated the requirement that applicants comply with all executive orders and acknowledged that “gender ideology” would be a factor in its grant decision-making.
The motion for summary judgment was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union; the ACLU of Rhode Island through cooperating attorney Lynette Labinger; and David Cole, in the U.S. District Court of Rhode Island on behalf of Rhode Island Latino Arts and three outside arts organizations: National Queer Theater, The Theater Offensive, and the Theatre Communications Group.
The motion can be viewed here. All case documents can be viewed here.
“The NEA has admitted that it is screening art projects for ‘gender ideology,’” said Vera Eidelman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “This is a clear-cut violation of the First Amendment. By judging projects based on whether they fit the government’s worldview, the NEA is abandoning its statutory role to fund works based on excellence and merit, as well as violating the free expression rights of artists across the country.”
“We know that the NEA is not upholding the protections guaranteed by the First Amendment,” said Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU of Rhode Island. “If Rhode Island Latino Arts’ grant application, and all the plaintiffs’ applications, are denied funding because of ideology, then this would be a major step backward in our collective right to freedom of speech. We are hopeful the court will not accept the NEA’s troubling arguments.”
Challenging New Federal Grant Requirements,
ACLU oF RI, LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR RI AND NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS SUE ON BEHALF OF
RI COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, NATIONAL COALITIONS
New Requirements Threaten Support for Victims of Violence
A nationwide group of 17 state domestic violence and sexual assault coalitions, led by the Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence (RICADV), filed a lawsuit today seeking to stop the Trump administration from imposing unlawful restrictions on grants issued by the Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) under the federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Rhode Island, challenges new restrictions on grant funding for domestic and sexual violence prevention services that the lawsuit claims make it impossible for many of the service providers to operate critical safety programs effectively, threatening to eliminate services that victims of violence rely on in neighborhoods throughout the country. The suit was filed by local attorneys representing the ACLU of RI and the Lawyers’ Committee for RI, as well as Democracy Forward, Jacobson Lawyers Group, and the National Women’s Law Center.
Among other restrictions, the new requirements for grant funding bar RICADV and the other organizational plaintiffs from promoting “gender ideology” or any diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs “that do not advance the policy of equal dignity and respect.” The organizations are also barred from engaging in “activities that frame domestic violence or sexual assault as systemic social justice issues rather than criminal offenses,” and from “promoting” the “violation of federal immigration law.”
The lawsuit argues:
Defendant’s imposition of the [funding conditions] place Plaintiffs and their members in an impossible position. They must choose between forgoing funding essential to their ability to fulfill their missions—and in some cases to their ability to operate at all—and accepting and certifying compliance with conditions that are in tension with their statutory duties, unlawfully vague, restrictive of speech, in violation of other constitutional and statutory requirements, and at odds with their values and missions.
For example, Plaintiffs fear that their efforts to implement VAWA’s protections for the undocumented people they serve could be seen as “promoting” violations of federal immigration law. They fear that refusing to discriminate based on gender identity—a requirement of their OVW grants and VAWA itself—could be viewed as promoting “gender ideology.” And they fear the chilling effect that the certifications will have on their ability to carry out their missions.
The Trump Administration has warned groups applying for the grants that they could be subject to substantial penalties under the federal False Claims Act if they violate any of the grant conditions. However, the lawsuit points out that organizations receiving funding under VAWA have “statutory obligations to ensure that victims are not subjected to discrimination, to provide services to underserved populations, and to include services that are ‘primarily directed’ toward racial and ethnic minority groups,” and they would therefore have to alter their programming in ways that would violate VAWA itself.
Imposition of these restrictions would be felt locally in Rhode Island. RICADV, a nonprofit domestic violence membership organization made up of 10 agencies, has received Coalition Grant funds from OVW for over two decades. Under those grants, Congress prescribes a specific amount of money to be distributed to each state-recognized domestic violence and sexual assault coalition, such as RICADV. Without the funds, RICADV would be unable to provide the same level of support and education to domestic violence victims and the community that it currently provides.
“Without access to this funding, vital programs that keep Rhode Islanders safe and keep our state at the forefront of addressing domestic violence are at risk, including RI’s first Safe Exchange and Supervised Visitation Center for families experiencing domestic violence,” said Lucy Rios, executive director of the Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence (RICADV). “The frameworks that inform our mission and the knowledge and research from our field are also at risk. Domestic violence is unequivocally a public health and social justice issue. We refuse to renounce this understanding that is central to our work. We strive to be as courageous and resilient as the survivors in our communities as we stand up to protect the safety net for victims and infrastructure for prevention that we have been collectively building for nearly 50 years.”
“By requiring organizations and coalitions to attest to certifications that run counter to their very missions, in addition to potentially violating state and federal law, the federal government is prioritizing political ideologies over the funding of critical support for vulnerable people in our communities,” said Steven Brown, Executive Director of the ACLU of Rhode Island. “We stand firm in our challenge to this set of requirements.”
“Nearly 1 in 2 Rhode Islanders have experienced domestic violence. RICADV, its member agencies, and the other coalitions across the country protect countless people, including children, from the dangers and consequences of domestic violence and sexual assault,” said Amy Romero, Chief Legal Counsel of Lawyers’ Committee for Rhode Island. “The certification requirements imposed on domestic violence agencies are unlawful, unconstitutional and jeopardize these agencies’ ability to provide essential and life-saving services to victims and survivors here in Rhode Island and nationwide. The Lawyers’ Committee for Rhode Island is proud to represent RICADV and coalitions across the country who are standing firm in their organizations’ mission and challenging the Trump Administration’s actions.”
Among other claims, the lawsuit argues that the OVW prohibitions violate the First Amendment, are unconstitutionally vague, and contravene the Administrative Procedure Act, a law that prohibits “arbitrary and capricious” federal agency actions.
Besides RICADV, the group of state domestic violence and sexual assault coalitions participating as plaintiffs in the case includes the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault, DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence, End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin: The Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Idaho Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence, Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Jane Doe Inc., The Massachusetts Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence, Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence, Montana Coalition Against Domestic And Sexual Violence, North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Oregon Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, ValorUS, Violence Free Minnesota, Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance, and the Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault.
The coalition is represented in the matter by Democracy Forward, Jacobson Lawyers Group, Lynette Labinger for the ACLU of Rhode Island, the National Women’s Law Center, and Amy Romero of DeLuca, Weizenbaum, Barry & Revens, Ltd. for the Lawyers’ Committee for Rhode Island.
