Wisconsin
Apparent Suspension of Student Groups at Wisconsin for Pro-Hamas Chalking
From FIRE’s letter sent yesterday to the University of Wisconsin (you can see the citations here); I generally trust FIRE’s factual summaries, but if there is any error in the below, I’ll of course be very glad to correct it:
FIRE is deeply concerned that UW-Madison has suspended two registered student organizations—Anticolonial Scientists and Mecha de UW Madison—amid criticism of chalk messages some group members allegedly wrote at an off-campus event earlier this month. Some of the messages expressed support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas’s Al-Qassam Brigades, and advocated the use of violence against Israelis and Zionists in the Middle East.
The student groups are currently under interim suspensions, pending investigation, with UW stating that, because “[s]ome chalkings endorsed violence, supported terrorist organizations and/or contained antisemitic comments,” they could qualify as prohibited discriminatory harassment under the university’s RSO Code of Conduct. But that conclusion cannot constitutionally stand. The off-campus chalk messages constitute political speech wholly protected by the First Amendment, which requires UW, as a public institution, to respect the groups’ expressive and associational rights—even if some, many, or most people dislike their message.
There is, more specifically, no First Amendment exception that would remove protection from speech simply because it is deemed “anti-Semitic” or otherwise bigoted based on race or religion. Regardless of the viewpoint expressed, the rule is the same: Government officials cannot circumscribe expression on the basis that others find the ideas offensive or hateful.
This is particularly true at public colleges, where “conflict is not unknown,” and “dissent is expected and, accordingly, so is at least some disharmony.” The First Amendment instead “embraces such heated exchange[s] of views.”
The Supreme Court has long recognized the public’s interest “in having free and unhindered debate on matters of public importance” as “the core value of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.” And there is simply no question that chalking support for any participants in the Israel/Hamas war—the reverberations of which have been felt globally for many months—constitutes expression on a matter of public concern, which is defined broadly as speech “relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community.”
Nor is there evidence (despite UW’s suggestion) that the students’ political messages, written in chalk at a farmers’ market nearly a mile from campus, would approach the legal bars for either material support for terrorism or discriminatory harassment—even if those same words had been written on UW’s own sidewalks.
The Supreme Court defines discriminatory harassment in the educational context as only those statements which are unwelcome, discriminatory on the basis of protected status, and “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it can be said to deprive the victim[] of access to the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school.” The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has likewise clarified that discriminatory harassment “must include something beyond the mere expression of views, words, symbols, or thoughts that some person finds offensive.”
Current events do not change this analysis. Earlier this month, OCR reiterated that “offensiveness of a particular expression as perceived by some students, standing alone, is not a legally sufficient basis to establish a hostile environment under Title VI,” and that “[n]othing in Title VI or regulations implementing it requires or authorizes a school to restrict any rights otherwise protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.” OCR’s letter also emphasized that campuses have options for addressing the impact of hostile speech that avoid offending the First Amendment, including by offering a variety of support services to affected students.
UW’s own discriminatory harassment policies and RSO rules reflect these appropriate limits on its ability to punish core political speech, with the RSO rules clearly stating they “will not be used to impose discipline for the lawful expression of ideas” and that “[t]he right of all students to seek knowledge, debate, and freely express their ideas is fully recognized by the University.” This is surely because, as you know, free expression is a “longstanding priority” at UW-Madison, which has a dedicated mission and a values statement focused on “Free Expression at UW-Madison.” That statement describes “the need for the free exchange of ideas through open dialogue, free inquiry, and healthy and robust debate,” as “inherent” to the university’s educational mission, “captured by our now-famous language about the importance of ‘that fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone truth can be found.’”
Student organizations play an important role in the healthy speech ecosystem that UW’s mission and values seek to foster. In turn, the First Amendment protects these groups’ expressive and associational rights, fostering their ability to organize around causes and to attempt to influence our institutions, communities, and country. Nor can universities subject the speech of students in RSOs to additional, viewpoint-based scrutiny.
Instead, student groups’ speech rights are broad, and they extend to expressing philosophical support for the use of force or violence. As the Supreme Court has held: “What is a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech,” including “political hyperbole,” given our country’s “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.”
Government actors may prohibit non-expressive conduct intended to provide material support, like property or services, to designated foreign terrorist organizations. But the First Amendment’s protection of robust debate prohibits government actors from limiting mere expressive activity or rhetorical support for such groups. That is so even where the net effect of the advocacy is to sway public opinion.
Despite what may be good intentions, UW does its community no service by censoring these controversial messages. Like many universities, UW is a community of people with sharply divergent views on a wide variety of issues. To the extent the chalked messages have informed UW students, faculty, and staff members of the presence of individuals with these views on campus, this should be seen as an opportunity for those who disagree either to engage with them in good faith—or, if they wish, to avoid such engagement. Censoring them will do nothing to change their minds, and will deny all parties the opportunity to learn from one another.
The First Amendment, and UW’s longstanding commitment to its attendant norms, are most relevant on campus at precisely the moments like these, when social and political unrest triggers high emotions, deep divisions, and the temptation to turn to censorship. When a university departs from its core principles at these key moments and resorts to silencing views it deems odious, it sends the message that the university has subordinated both the rights of its students and its mission of liberal education to the political demands of the day.
We therefore urge you in the strongest possible terms, in this difficult season for campus discourse, to stand by the university’s legal and moral obligations to respect students’ core expressive freedoms. This requires promptly reinstating the Anticolonial Scientists and Mecha de UW Madison student organizations, and publicly disavowing any ongoing investigation into their clearly protected political speech.
Given the urgent nature of this matter, we request a substantive response to our inquiry no later than close of business Thursday, May 23, 2024.
The legal analysis sounds quite right to me. Note that, even if the government could forbid chalking in various places (and it’s not clear whether it can), it can’t specially punish chalking that conveys particular views, including advocacy of foreign terrorist organizations and support for violence in foreign conflicts.
Wisconsin
These Wisconsin swing voters say Trump’s war in Iran wasn’t worth it
Vessels are anchored along the Strait of Hormuz.
Amirhossein Khorgooei/ISNA/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Amirhossein Khorgooei/ISNA/AFP via Getty Images
The war in Iran was a costly blunder, according to swing voters in the battleground state of Wisconsin.
NPR observed two online focus groups on Tuesday featuring voters who supported Joe Biden in 2020 and then Donald Trump in 2024.
President Trump had just announced a framework agreement to end the war, which he signed on Wednesday.
Yet among the focus groups’ 13 participants, no one said they thought the conflict with Iran was “worth it,” and nine said they felt that the U.S. is coming out of this conflict weaker than before.
Corey M., a 33-year-old independent voter, said he is concerned that the U.S. expended “so much financially and so much of our arsenal,” with little to show for it. (All participants agreed to be part of the focus groups on the condition that they be identified by their first name and last initial only.)
“We essentially got nothing out of it,” he said. “It’s hurt our economy and increased expenses for the everyday American, and it accomplished the square root of nothing.”
Focus groups are not scientifically significant like polling. But they provide insight into how Americans are thinking about what they see in the news.

These focus groups — made up of 10 self-described independents, two Democrats and one Republican — were conducted by messaging and market research firms Engagious and Sago as part of the Swing Voter Project. NPR is a partner on the project.
Rich Thau, president of Engagious, moderated the focus groups. He has been asking voters in key states about this conflict since March. And he said voters have been consistent.
“They were never on board,” Thau said. “Not the beginning. Not in the middle. And as we just learned, not at the end either, judging from what we heard from Wisconsin swing voters.”
Sam M., a 30-year-old independent, said from what he read about the deal, it wasn’t leaving the U.S. in a better position than before the war. In fact, he said he thought the Iran nuclear deal brokered by the Obama administration — which Trump backed out of — was a better deal for the United States.
Anger over high gas prices
For most voters, though, their biggest concern has remained the high gas prices that are a consequence of the war.
Tammy S., a 53-year-old independent voter, said Americans have been unfairly caught in the middle.
“I just don’t think the way that everybody else had to suffer through the tantrums of these two playing tug-of-war — I just don’t think that it was fair to the American people,” she said. “I don’t think that anybody was a real winner here.”

Several voters said they’ve felt squeezed by costs and as a result have given up something that had been a regular part of their life. They’ve cut vacations and eating out or are getting their hair done less often.
“I’ve given up all my extracurricular hobbies … paddleboarding, yoga,” said Jaylyn M., a 27-year-old who identifies as a Republican. “And then a lot of my subscriptions I’ve cut out, along with my daily coffee, which is minor, but all things that I’ve had to give up to make ends meet.”
“I had to raise all my deductibles on everything — my car insurance, my health insurance — to lower my premiums, so that I can continue to make it,” added Robyn T., a 63-year-old independent.
Trump owns the economic problems
The latest NPR/PBS News/Marist poll, out Thursday, finds that only a third of Americans approve of how Trump is handling the economy.
In the focus groups, nine of the 13 voters said they are more anxious about the economy than they were before Trump took office last year. And all but one voter said that “President Trump himself is responsible for those higher prices” because of the war.
“And 10 said he’s out of touch with their economic concerns,” Thau told NPR. “So for them, there’s a clear disconnect between how the president’s operating on the economy and what their needs are.”
And heading into what could be some tough midterm elections for Republicans, voters are really frustrated that Trump isn’t delivering a better economy by now.
“It seems to me, like, pick your issue, and things are not going well for him,” said Josh K., a 29-year-old independent voter. “I mean, we got this stupid war in Iran, and it turns out that we actually aren’t getting anything out of it. I mean, all we got was $4 gas. I mean, pick your issue — the economy, things are more expensive.”
Wisconsin
President of Wisconsin’s largest mosque released from ICE custody
A federal judge has ordered the release of the president of Wisconsin’s largest mosque, after finding that immigration officials probably detained him in retaliation against his public advocacy for Palestinian rights, suppressing his first amendment rights in the process.
The US district judge James Patrick Hanlon’s order on Thursday marked a sharp rebuke against Trump officials, including the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, who had tried to paint Salah Sarsour as a national security threat.
“Salah Sarsour, who has lived in this country for more than three decades and served as a core pillar in his community without any issues, should never have been detained in the first place,” his legal team wrote in a statement. “While we continue to fight these baseless claims in court, today is about celebrating a family being reunited. It is also a sober reminder that, if the government can target Mr Sarsour, everyone’s free speech rights are at risk.”
Sarsour describes himself as a stateless Palestinian, according to the order. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) says that he is a Jordanian citizen. He has lived in the United States for more than three decades, becoming a legal permanent resident in 1998. Immigration officials approved Sarsour’s citizenship application decades ago, though he did not naturalize.
Sarsour has garnered public attention as a champion for Palestinian rights, and serves as a board member of an advocacy group called American Muslims for Palestine.
But Rubio personally signed off on a memo to the DHS last year describing Sarsour as deportable despite his green card, because “his actions undermine US foreign policy to combat antisemitism around the world”. The memo, cited in Hanlon’s order, accuses Sarsour’s group of being “found to have been involved in activities providing funds to Hamas”.
A group of plainclothes ICE officers from at least 10 unmarked vehicles swarmed Sarsour on 30 March of this year, arresting him and putting him in deportation proceedings. ICE ultimately detained him in Clay county jail in Indiana.
Sarsour lost 30lb while detained, the order says. His lawyers told the court that he was “at constant risk of developing serious complications from diabetes given that the medical staff only checks his blood-sugar levels once a month”. Tightly controlling diabetes typically requires multiple glucose checks daily.
Hanlon’s order says that homeland security officials and Rubio probably trampled on Sarsour’s first amendment right to free speech and appeared to have arrested him in retaliation for his Palestinian rights advocacy.
The order cited a New York Times story and the website for the Heritage Foundation, the conservative thinktank that dreamed up Project 2025,
The Heritage Foundation presented the White House with the idea to present prominent foreign-born Muslims and Palestinian rights leaders as terrorists in order to sue them, deport them or pressure employers to fire them, the order says, citing reporting from the Times and Heritage’s own website. Sarsour was probably among the targets of that campaign, the order says.
The federal government, through its lawyers, contended that Sarsour should be deported based on two convictions from more than three decades ago in Israel – one for throwing a molotov cocktail and the other for attempting to store weapons and ammunition.
Sarsour denies having committed those crimes.
But Hanlon viewed those crimes as a non-issue for justifying his incarceration, noting that the federal government knew about them since the 1990s and approved his legal permanent residency and his citizenship application anyway.
Sarsour’s speech on Palestinian rights “is core political speech and squarely within the scope of the First Amendment”, the order says. “Mr Sarsour has submitted evidence allowing a reasonable inference that his protected speech was ‘at least a motivating factor’ in Respondents’ decision to detain him.”
A spokesperson for homeland security described Sarsour as a “terrorist”, citing the convictions from his youth in Israel.
Government lawyers had argued that Sarsour did not have the same first amendment rights as US citizens. If he were released, they said, he should have to pay a $25,000 bond, wear an ankle monitor, check in routinely with ICE and remain confined to his house.
Instead, Hanlon ordered his release on personal recognizance, meaning that Sarsour does not have to pay a cash bond to compel him to show up in court again. The order, however, requires him to remain in the state of Wisconsin.
Wisconsin
Couple asks Wisconsin Supreme Court to hear Brewers 50-50 raffle prize dispute
(WLUK) – A couple challenging the decision not to award them a 50-50 raffle prize at a Milwaukee Brewers game asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to take the case, calling it one of “statewide importance.”
Matthew and Annette Flynn purchased ten raffle tickets at the July 7, 2023, game, and held the winning number which was originally selected for $13,000. According to court records, the raffle rules in effect at the time required the winning ticket holder to claim the prize at a designated 50-50 table by the end of the top of the seventh inning. Flynn said she did not see the winning number displayed or hear it announced and was directed by stadium personnel to another location before making her way to the claim table. Officials determined she did not arrive before the deadline and selected a new winning ticket.
The Flynns sued, but the circuit and appeals courts ruled the raffle’s rules gave the foundation sole discretion to determine the official winner and that the rules clearly stated a participant who failed to claim the prize within the specified time would be disqualified.
In a petition to the Wisconsin Supreme Court filed Wednesday, the Flynn’s asked the high court to take the case, saying the decision “affects not only the parties to this action but potentially every Wisconsin resident who participates in charitable raffles and similar gaming activities.”
“This case presents significant questions concerning contractual discretion, discovery, judicial review of charitable gaming decisions, and the treatment of digital evidence within Wisconsin’s appellate system. For these reasons, Petitioners respectfully request that this Court grant review of the decision of the Court of Appeals,” the petition states.
The high court does not have to take the case. At some point, it will vote on if to take it. If it does, a months-long process to review the issues will begin. If it does not, the appeals court ruling would stand.
According to the rules posted on the Milwaukee Brewers’ website, the deadline to claim the prize is no longer during the game the tickets were purchased.
BE THE FIRST TO COMMENT
“The Participant in possession of the Raffle ticket with the potential winning number may claim the Prize at the 50/50 Table located on the Loge (2nd) level concourse behind Sections 216/217 until such time as the Ballpark officially closes to fans after the end of the game. If the Participant in possession of the Raffle ticket with the potential winning number does not claim the Prize by the time the Ballpark closes to fans after the end of the game, that Participant may still claim the Prize within thirty (30) days after the conclusion of the Raffle Period for the respective baseball game by contacting the Raffle hotline (414-902-4334). A Prize that is not claimed within thirty (30) days after the conclusion of the Raffle Period will be awarded in compliance with applicable regulations,” the site states.
-
Wisconsin5 minutes agoThese Wisconsin swing voters say Trump’s war in Iran wasn’t worth it
-
West Virginia8 minutes agoDelays expected during traffic shift on US 119 for bridge work
-
Wyoming13 minutes agoJune 18 recap: Wyoming news you may have missed today
-
Crypto20 minutes agoEl Salvador Adds to Bitcoin Reserve Again as Daily Buys Push Stack Past 7,680 BTC
-
Finance23 minutes agoLUMIQ Raises Strategic Funding to Become the AI Decision Layer for Financial Services
-
Fitness28 minutes agoWhen is the best time to exercise in the heat?
-
Movie Reviews38 minutes ago‘Maa Inti Bangaram’ Movie Review: Samantha Rocks, Writing Suffers
-
World50 minutes agoUS tells ASML it is concerned China may have top chip tool, Bloomberg News reports