New York
Appeals court overturns order that stripped some protections from pregnant state workers
NEW YORK (AP) — A federal appeals court has upheld a law strengthening the rights of pregnant workers, vacating a judge’s earlier order that had stripped those protections from Texas state employees.
The ruling was a victory for advocates of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a law that passed with bipartisan support in 2022 but quickly became embroiled in controversy over whether it covers workers seeking abortions and fertility treatments.
A federal judge last year blocked enforcement of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act for Texas state employees, ruling that its passage was unconstitutional because a majority of House members were not physically present to approve the law as part of spending package in December 2022.
In a 2-1 decision, the Fifth Circuit appeals court disagreed, finding that the law was properly passed under a COVID-19 pandemic-era Congressional rule allowing members to vote by proxy to meet the quorum requirement.
The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act strengthens the rights of women to receive workplace accommodation for needs related to pregnancy and childbirth, such as time off for medical appointments and exemptions from heavy lifting. Its passage came after a decades long campaign by women’s advocacy groups highlighting the struggles of pregnant workers, especially those in low-wage roles, who were routinely forced off the job after requesting accommodations.
The Texas case differed from other lawsuits that have narrowly focused on federal regulations stating that abortion, fertility treatments and birth control are medical issues requiring protection under the new law. The lawsuit, filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, instead took aim at the entirety of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, drawing opposition from Republican lawmakers including former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who defended the pandemic-era proxy voting rule.
Under the Trump administration, the Department of Justice has continued to fight Paxton’s lawsuit, which if successful, could help open the door to legal challenges of other pandemic-era laws passed by proxy.
Paxton’s office did not reply to emails seeking comment, and it was not clear whether he would appeal Friday’s ruling. The Justice Department declined to comment.
“This is a big win for women’s rights. We are really happy to see that the Fifth Circuit agreed with us that the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act was passed constitutionally and will continue to fight for the PWFA to stay legal,” said Inimai Chettiar, president of a Better Balance, an advocacy group that spearheaded the campaign for passage of the law.
Texas state employees are not immediately protected, however, because the appeals court ruling doesn’t become final for several weeks to give time for a possible appeal, Chettiar said.
Conservative officials and religious groups, meanwhile, have been largely successfully in challenging the regulations passed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which established that workers seeking abortions are entitled accommodations.
In May, a federal court struck down the abortion provisions of the EEOC regulations in response to lawsuits brought by states of Louisiana and Mississippi, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic University and two Catholic dioceses.
The Trump administration is almost certain to comply with that ruling. President Donald Trump in January fired two of the EEOC’s democratic commissioners, paving the way for him to quickly establish a Republican majority at the agency. EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas, a Republican, has signaled her support for revising the regulations, arguing the agency exceeded its authority by including not only abortion but fertility treatments and birth control as medical needs covered by the law.
Texas
Judge: State can’t require the Ten Commandments in every public school classroom
Texas cannot require public schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom, a judge said Wednesday in a temporary ruling against the state’s new requirement, making it the third such state law to be blocked by a court.
A group of Dallas-area families and faith leaders sought a preliminary injunction against the law, which goes into effect on Sept. 1. They say the requirement violates the First Amendment’s protections for the separation of church and state and the right to free religious exercise.
Texas is the largest state to attempt such a requirement, and U.S. District Judge Fred Biery’s ruling from San Antonio is the latest in a widening legal fight that’s expected to eventually go before the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Even though the Ten Commandments would not be affirmatively taught, the captive audience of students likely would have questions, which teachers would feel compelled to answer. That is what they do,” Biery wrote in the 55-page ruling that began with quoting the First Amendment and ended with “Amen.”
The lawsuit names the Texas Education Agency, state education Commissioner Mike Morath and three Dallas-area school districts as defendants.
A federal appeals court has blocked a similar law in Louisiana, and a judge in Arkansas told four districts they cannot put up the posters, although other districts in the state said they’re not putting them up either.
Although Friday’s ruling marked a major win for civil liberties groups who say the law violates the separation of church and state, the legal battle is likely far from over.
Religious groups and conservatives say the Ten Commandments are part of the foundation of the United States’ judicial and educational systems and should be displayed. Texas has a Ten Commandments monument on the Capitol grounds and won a 2005 Supreme Court case that upheld the monument.
In Louisiana — the first state that mandated the Ten Commandments be displayed in classrooms — a panel of three appellate judges in June ruled that the law was unconstitutional.
Rhode Island
Prosecutor under review after warning ‘you’re gonna regret this’ during arrest
A Rhode Island prosecutor is under review after police body camera footage recorded her warning officers “you’re gonna regret this” while she was being arrested.
Devon Flanagan, a special assistant attorney general, was arrested outside a restaurant by Newport police Aug. 14 for trespassing, according to law enforcement.
Body camera footage provided by the police department shows Flanagan asking an officer multiple times to turn off his body camera and then repeatedly saying “I’m an AG.”
The footage shows the officers approaching someone from the restaurant and asking if “they want them trespassed.” The person clasps his hands and responds saying “Trespass, yeah. Cuff ‘em, please.”
When the officer says Flanagan and the individuals also with her are trespassing, the attorney says “We’re not trespassing, you haven’t notified us that we’re trespassing.”
“What did I just say to you? You’re trespassing,” says the officer, who is not identified in the video.
“I’m an AG. I’m an AG,” Flanagan later says.
“Good for you,” the officer says and then an expletive.
Eventually, Flanagan is put in a patrol vehicle and says, “Buddy, you’re gonna regret this. You’re gonna regret it.”
According to the Attorney General’s office, Flanagan has worked for the state’s top legal office for nearly seven years and is currently assigned to the criminal division’s appellate unit.
A spokesperson for the attorney general said the office was reviewing the incident and declined to comment further, citing personnel reasons.
During an interview with WPRO on Tuesday, Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha said Flanagan was “going to take some steps” to address the arrest, which include an apology to Newport police, but said no decision had been made regarding discipline.
“Look, she’s put me in a bad position. She’s embarrassed herself, humiliated herself, treated the Newport Police Department horribly,” Neronha said.
“I’ve got 110 lawyers. She embarrassed all of them, in a sense,” he added.
Tennessee
Abrego Garcia’s lawyers want smuggling charges dismissed on grounds of ‘vindictive prosecution’
Lawyers for Kilmar Abrego Garcia asked a federal judge on Tuesday to dismiss a human smuggling case against him, saying the government was prosecuting the Maryland construction worker to punish him for challenging his removal to El Salvador.
Their motion filed in court said attempts to dismiss indictments on the grounds of “selective or vindictive prosecution” are infrequent and rarely succeed, “but if there has ever been a case for dismissal on those grounds, this is that case.”
The attorneys said senior cabinet members, Justice Department leaders and President Donald Trump mounted unprecedented public attacks on Abrego Garcia and that “vindictiveness is clear from the record.”
Acting U.S. Attorney Robert E. McGuire in Tennessee, where Abrego Garcia is in jail, said in an email prosecutors would have no other comment beyond what they file in response to the motion. No prosecutor response was filed as of late Tuesday.
Abrego Garcia became a prominent face in the debate over Trump’s immigration policies following his wrongful expulsion to El Salvador in March. Trump’s administration violated a U.S. immigration judge’s order in 2019 that shields Abrego Garcia from deportation to El Salvador because he likely faces threats of gang violence there.
The administration claimed Abrego Garcia was in the MS-13 gang, although he wasn’t charged and has repeatedly denied the allegation. Facing mounting pressure and a U.S. Supreme Court order, the Trump administration returned Abrego Garcia to the U.S. in June to face the smuggling charges, which his attorneys have called “preposterous.”
Tuesday’s motion alleged the government was trying to paint Abrego Garcia as a criminal to punish him for challenging his removal to El Salvador and to avoid “the embarrassment of accepting responsibility for its unlawful conduct.” The motion said the government also aimed to change public opinion about Abrego Garcia’s deportation.
Abrego Garcia’s attorneys asked the court at least to order a hearing on the government’s motives.
The smuggling case stems from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding, during which Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle with nine passengers. Police in Tennessee suspected human smuggling, but he was allowed to drive on.
A federal judge in Maryland last month prohibited the Trump administration from taking Abrego Garcia into immediate immigration custody if he’s released from jail. The judge ordered the government to provide three business days notice if Immigration and Customs Enforcement intends to initiate deportation proceedings against him.
Appeals court overturns order that stripped some protections from pregnant state workers
NEW YORK (AP) — A federal appeals court has upheld a law strengthening the rights of pregnant workers, vacating a judge’s earlier order that had stripped those protections from Texas state employees.
The ruling was a victory for advocates of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a law that passed with bipartisan support in 2022 but quickly became embroiled in controversy over whether it covers workers seeking abortions and fertility treatments.
A federal judge last year blocked enforcement of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act for Texas state employees, ruling that its passage was unconstitutional because a majority of House members were not physically present to approve the law as part of spending package in December 2022.
In a 2-1 decision, the Fifth Circuit appeals court disagreed, finding that the law was properly passed under a COVID-19 pandemic-era Congressional rule allowing members to vote by proxy to meet the quorum requirement.
The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act strengthens the rights of women to receive workplace accommodation for needs related to pregnancy and childbirth, such as time off for medical appointments and exemptions from heavy lifting. Its passage came after a decades long campaign by women’s advocacy groups highlighting the struggles of pregnant workers, especially those in low-wage roles, who were routinely forced off the job after requesting accommodations.
The Texas case differed from other lawsuits that have narrowly focused on federal regulations stating that abortion, fertility treatments and birth control are medical issues requiring protection under the new law. The lawsuit, filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, instead took aim at the entirety of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, drawing opposition from Republican lawmakers including former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who defended the pandemic-era proxy voting rule.
Under the Trump administration, the Department of Justice has continued to fight Paxton’s lawsuit, which if successful, could help open the door to legal challenges of other pandemic-era laws passed by proxy.
Paxton’s office did not reply to emails seeking comment, and it was not clear whether he would appeal Friday’s ruling. The Justice Department declined to comment.
“This is a big win for women’s rights. We are really happy to see that the Fifth Circuit agreed with us that the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act was passed constitutionally and will continue to fight for the PWFA to stay legal,” said Inimai Chettiar, president of a Better Balance, an advocacy group that spearheaded the campaign for passage of the law.
Texas state employees are not immediately protected, however, because the appeals court ruling doesn’t become final for several weeks to give time for a possible appeal, Chettiar said.
Conservative officials and religious groups, meanwhile, have been largely successfully in challenging the regulations passed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which established that workers seeking abortions are entitled accommodations.
In May, a federal court struck down the abortion provisions of the EEOC regulations in response to lawsuits brought by states of Louisiana and Mississippi, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic University and two Catholic dioceses.
The Trump administration is almost certain to comply with that ruling. President Donald Trump in January fired two of the EEOC’s democratic commissioners, paving the way for him to quickly establish a Republican majority at the agency. EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas, a Republican, has signaled her support for revising the regulations, arguing the agency exceeded its authority by including not only abortion but fertility treatments and birth control as medical needs covered by the law.
Texas
Judge: State can’t require the Ten Commandments in every public school classroom
Texas cannot require public schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom, a judge said Wednesday in a temporary ruling against the state’s new requirement, making it the third such state law to be blocked by a court.
A group of Dallas-area families and faith leaders sought a preliminary injunction against the law, which goes into effect on Sept. 1. They say the requirement violates the First Amendment’s protections for the separation of church and state and the right to free religious exercise.
Texas is the largest state to attempt such a requirement, and U.S. District Judge Fred Biery’s ruling from San Antonio is the latest in a widening legal fight that’s expected to eventually go before the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Even though the Ten Commandments would not be affirmatively taught, the captive audience of students likely would have questions, which teachers would feel compelled to answer. That is what they do,” Biery wrote in the 55-page ruling that began with quoting the First Amendment and ended with “Amen.”
The lawsuit names the Texas Education Agency, state education Commissioner Mike Morath and three Dallas-area school districts as defendants.
A federal appeals court has blocked a similar law in Louisiana, and a judge in Arkansas told four districts they cannot put up the posters, although other districts in the state said they’re not putting them up either.
Although Friday’s ruling marked a major win for civil liberties groups who say the law violates the separation of church and state, the legal battle is likely far from over.
Religious groups and conservatives say the Ten Commandments are part of the foundation of the United States’ judicial and educational systems and should be displayed. Texas has a Ten Commandments monument on the Capitol grounds and won a 2005 Supreme Court case that upheld the monument.
In Louisiana — the first state that mandated the Ten Commandments be displayed in classrooms — a panel of three appellate judges in June ruled that the law was unconstitutional.
Rhode Island
Prosecutor under review after warning ‘you’re gonna regret this’ during arrest
A Rhode Island prosecutor is under review after police body camera footage recorded her warning officers “you’re gonna regret this” while she was being arrested.
Devon Flanagan, a special assistant attorney general, was arrested outside a restaurant by Newport police Aug. 14 for trespassing, according to law enforcement.
Body camera footage provided by the police department shows Flanagan asking an officer multiple times to turn off his body camera and then repeatedly saying “I’m an AG.”
The footage shows the officers approaching someone from the restaurant and asking if “they want them trespassed.” The person clasps his hands and responds saying “Trespass, yeah. Cuff ‘em, please.”
When the officer says Flanagan and the individuals also with her are trespassing, the attorney says “We’re not trespassing, you haven’t notified us that we’re trespassing.”
“What did I just say to you? You’re trespassing,” says the officer, who is not identified in the video.
“I’m an AG. I’m an AG,” Flanagan later says.
“Good for you,” the officer says and then an expletive.
Eventually, Flanagan is put in a patrol vehicle and says, “Buddy, you’re gonna regret this. You’re gonna regret it.”
According to the Attorney General’s office, Flanagan has worked for the state’s top legal office for nearly seven years and is currently assigned to the criminal division’s appellate unit.
A spokesperson for the attorney general said the office was reviewing the incident and declined to comment further, citing personnel reasons.
During an interview with WPRO on Tuesday, Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha said Flanagan was “going to take some steps” to address the arrest, which include an apology to Newport police, but said no decision had been made regarding discipline.
“Look, she’s put me in a bad position. She’s embarrassed herself, humiliated herself, treated the Newport Police Department horribly,” Neronha said.
“I’ve got 110 lawyers. She embarrassed all of them, in a sense,” he added.
Tennessee
Abrego Garcia’s lawyers want smuggling charges dismissed on grounds of ‘vindictive prosecution’
Lawyers for Kilmar Abrego Garcia asked a federal judge on Tuesday to dismiss a human smuggling case against him, saying the government was prosecuting the Maryland construction worker to punish him for challenging his removal to El Salvador.
Their motion filed in court said attempts to dismiss indictments on the grounds of “selective or vindictive prosecution” are infrequent and rarely succeed, “but if there has ever been a case for dismissal on those grounds, this is that case.”
The attorneys said senior cabinet members, Justice Department leaders and President Donald Trump mounted unprecedented public attacks on Abrego Garcia and that “vindictiveness is clear from the record.”
Acting U.S. Attorney Robert E. McGuire in Tennessee, where Abrego Garcia is in jail, said in an email prosecutors would have no other comment beyond what they file in response to the motion. No prosecutor response was filed as of late Tuesday.
Abrego Garcia became a prominent face in the debate over Trump’s immigration policies following his wrongful expulsion to El Salvador in March. Trump’s administration violated a U.S. immigration judge’s order in 2019 that shields Abrego Garcia from deportation to El Salvador because he likely faces threats of gang violence there.
The administration claimed Abrego Garcia was in the MS-13 gang, although he wasn’t charged and has repeatedly denied the allegation. Facing mounting pressure and a U.S. Supreme Court order, the Trump administration returned Abrego Garcia to the U.S. in June to face the smuggling charges, which his attorneys have called “preposterous.”
Tuesday’s motion alleged the government was trying to paint Abrego Garcia as a criminal to punish him for challenging his removal to El Salvador and to avoid “the embarrassment of accepting responsibility for its unlawful conduct.” The motion said the government also aimed to change public opinion about Abrego Garcia’s deportation.
Abrego Garcia’s attorneys asked the court at least to order a hearing on the government’s motives.
The smuggling case stems from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding, during which Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle with nine passengers. Police in Tennessee suspected human smuggling, but he was allowed to drive on.
A federal judge in Maryland last month prohibited the Trump administration from taking Abrego Garcia into immediate immigration custody if he’s released from jail. The judge ordered the government to provide three business days notice if Immigration and Customs Enforcement intends to initiate deportation proceedings against him.
