红杏视频

In September of 2019, Peter Vlaming, a French teacher at West Point High School, refused to address a transgender boy in his class with he/him pronouns. Instead, the teacher avoided using pronouns when addressing the student, while continuing to use gendered pronouns when addressing everyone else. After several warnings, the school district told the teacher he needed to address the student with male pronouns (the same way he addressed other boys) or he would be fired. The teacher refused; the school district fired him, and Vlaming, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, filed a suit in state court arguing that the school district violated his free speech and free exercise rights under the Virginia Constitution and Virginia鈥檚 RFRA.

The 红杏视频 filed a federal lawsuit challenging South Carolina鈥檚 鈥渄isturbing schools鈥� and 鈥渄isorderly conduct鈥� laws. The laws allowed students in school to be criminally charged for normal adolescent behaviors including loitering, cursing, or undefined 鈥渙bnoxious鈥� actions on school grounds and encouraged discriminatory enforcement against Black students and students with disabilities. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court ruling that enforcing these laws against students was unconstitutional, affirming that subjecting students to criminal penalties under such vague rules interferes with their education and their future, and produces stark racial disparities. This decision should be instructive to the many school districts across the country where students continue to be charged with 鈥榙isorderly conduct鈥� and similar vague crimes.

The 红杏视频 is challenging the constitutionality of the NSA鈥檚 mass interception and searching of Americans鈥� international Internet communications. At issue is the NSA鈥檚 鈥淯pstream鈥� surveillance, through which the U.S. government systematically monitors private emails, messages, and other data flowing into and out of the country on the Internet鈥檚 central arteries. The 红杏视频鈥檚 lawsuit was brought on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation and eight legal, human rights, and media organizations, which together engage in trillions of sensitive communications and have been harmed by Upstream surveillance.

This case is about whether the First Amendment permits criminal punishment of speech that merely encourages a noncitizen to remain in the United States, without any requirement of intent to further illegal conduct, and when remaining in the United States unlawfully is itself not a crime.