The Forest Lake School Board voted late Thursday to revisit the district’s dress code in the fall after a proposal to remove the policy’s bans on specific symbols brought significant backlash from community members and students.

A proposed version of Policy No. 515 that was read in May would have followed Minnesota School Board Association model language and removed specific bans on symbols like swastikas, the KKK and the Confederate flag on clothing. Leading up to Thursday’s meeting, policy changes considered by the board had brought the district significant criticism as board members were split on removing the specific bans.

Community members filled the boardroom Thursday, overflowing into the lobby or sitting on the floor. Several people were asked to leave the meeting – one for speaking after the public comment period and another for carrying a sign that showed the symbols in question.

Forest Lake School Board Chairman Curt Rebelein, left, and Mayor Blake Roberts. (Courtesy of Rebelein and Roberts)

Chairman Curt Rebelein said Thursday he did not expect creating a policy in line with model language would be so contentious. Rebelein and Forest Lake Mayor Blake Roberts, who has publicly opposed removal of the specific bans, met with each other last week.

“One key topic that we agreed upon is that we should always avoid the extremes, and that we should not be an outlier among our peers,” Rebelein said. “Our current policy is an extreme outlier, and although I will support the notion that sometimes it’s good to be a trailblazer, any critical thinker quickly concludes that attempting to find offensive items is an exercise in futility.”

Superintendent Steve Massey told the board in May that the ban was implemented in 1997 after an African-American student was surrounded by a group of students after school and physically assaulted. The next day, a group of students wore white T-shirts to school to show their support of the racial assault.

Massey told that board at the time that it is important that the specific ban of the three symbols remain in Policy No. 515.

‘Counterproductive’

About 25 people spoke during the open-forum portion of the meeting, including former Mayor Mara Bain, who said she could not believe she had to attend the meeting.

“I can’t believe we’re here,” Bain said. “I kept telling myself, ‘This is going to die down. Someone is going to stand up and is going to say, ‘No, wait, this isn’t what we meant. This isn’t the path that we want to be on. This isn’t the path that we should be on here in 2025.’ And yet, here we are again. … I keep telling myself that no elected official is possibly going to vote to remove language that prohibits hate speech. This just isn’t something that elected officials who are in tune with their hearts and their community are going to do. And yet, here we are.”

Roberts also spoke during the open-forum portion of the meeting.

“I find it necessary to speak out against the potential removal of the language of the dress-code policy that takes out symbols of hate, genocide and lynching,” Roberts said. “The current policy has served Forest Lake well since it was put in place over 25 years ago. The idea, in 2025, that we are even considering taking those symbols out of this policy is absolutely sickening. How the potential change affects students is most important, but even consideration of this is absolutely counterproductive to everything we do to promote and celebrate Forest Lake. People and businesses do not want to live and do business in communities that are not welcoming and don’t discourage hate and racism.”

Bans remain into coming school year

Related Articles

Increased bear sightings in Forest Lake: What to know

Health care workers at Stillwater clinic gives notice of intent to strike

‘Had to do it’: St. Paul Park man to receive Carnegie Medal for fiery St. Paul rescue

Forest Lake mayor urges school board to keep dress-code restrictions

Music as meditation: Guitars for Vets provides outlet for MN vets

Following a motion by Rebelien, board members voted 6-1 that the policy be sent back to the district’s policy committee. The committee, which is expected to meet in September, will return to the board either with a recommendation to remove the specific bans or a more comprehensive list of objectionable items to be banned. Because the committee does not meet until the fall, specific bans on the Confederate flag, swastikas and KKK signs or symbols will remain in the policy in the coming school year, Rebelien said.

Rebelein, who has said he has read all 331 dress codes across Minnesota school districts, said there is one district in the state that has a list of prohibited items in its policy.

“And so there may be a good middle ground there, but it seems to me that the prerogative of the board and the community is that they want to keep these in here,” Rebelein said. “And if they want to keep these in here, I respect that, and I can support that, but we can’t just cherry-pick a couple of things off the top. I think we need to be clear with our intent.”

Mary Divine contributed to this report. 

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Friday to curb nationwide injunctions that challenge the Trump administration‘s policies left the fate of birthright citizenship — and other challenges California has mounted to White House policies — a bit unclear.

Here’s what the Supreme Court justices said in the birthright citizenship case:

View this document on Scribd

Related Articles

Senate Republicans move to slash CFPB funding by half, risking hundreds of job cuts

A rundown of recent Trump administration vaccine policy changes

California governor sues Fox News over alleged defamation in story about call with Trump

Republican plan for nationwide private school vouchers deemed in violation of Senate rules

The government cuts key data used in hurricane forecasting, and experts sound an alarm

Fate of birthright citizenship order unclear

A divided Supreme Court on Friday ruled that individual judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear the fate of President Donald Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship.

The outcome was a victory for the Republican president, who has complained about individual judges throwing up obstacles to his agenda.

But a conservative majority left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship changes could remain blocked nationwide. Trump’s order would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally.

The cases now return to lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the high court ruling, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion. Enforcement of the policy can’t take place for another 30 days, Barrett wrote.

The justices agreed with the Trump administration, as well as President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration before it, that judges are overreaching by issuing orders that apply to everyone instead of just the parties before the court.

What is birthright citizenship?

Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

In a notable Supreme Court decision from 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the court held that the only children who did not automatically receive U.S. citizenship upon being born on U.S. soil were the children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government; enemies present in the U.S. during hostile occupation; those born on foreign ships; and those born to members of sovereign Native American tribes.

The U.S. is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or “right of the soil” — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them.

Trump and his supporters have argued that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen, which he called “a priceless and profound gift” in the executive order he signed on his first day in office.

The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, a phrase used in the amendment, and therefore are not entitled to citizenship.

But states, immigrants and rights groups that have sued to block the executive order have accused the administration of trying to unsettle the broader understanding of birthright citizenship that has been accepted since the amendment’s adoption.

Contributing: Associated Press and Southern California News Group

“We never turn people away, yet the demand consistently exceeds resources. Despite these challenges, our programs are proven to reduce recidivism, emergency room visits, and homelessness—at a fraction of the cost of incarceration.”

A dormitory at Fortune Society’s transitional housing program Manhattan. (Photo by Adi Talwar)

Every day, our organizations witness people working hard to take responsibility for their actions and transform their lives. At the Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services (CASES) and The Fortune Society, we are dedicated to helping people access the support they need to avoid incarceration and rebuild their futures. Yet Alternative to Incarceration (ATI) and Reentry programs remain critically underfunded, threatening the progress of thousands of New Yorkers.

ATIs are community-based programs that address the root causes that lead people to court involvement—untreated mental illness, unstable housing, and unemployment. Reentry programs help people returning from jail or prison rebuild their lives, reconnect with their families, and contribute to their communities.

We applaud the proposed $17 million restoration for ATI and reentry programs in Mayor Eric Adams’ Executive Budget. Without this funding, thousands of New Yorkers—disproportionately Black and Latine—will lose access to essential services. While this restoration is vital, it is not enough. The need far exceeds the current investment.

At CASES, our ATI programs serve more than 1,000 people each year. Case managers are stretched thin, managing large caseloads while trying to provide individualized care. At The Fortune Society, we face similar challenges: existing programs are operating beyond capacity. We never turn people away, yet the demand consistently exceeds resources. Despite these challenges, our programs are proven to reduce recidivism, emergency room visits, and homelessness—at a fraction of the cost of incarceration.

The humanitarian crisis at Rikers Island is growing worse. Over the past few years, the number of people detained in city jails has increased by nearly 50 percent. Of the more than 7,500 people currently incarcerated at Rikers, the vast majority are Black and Latine, and over half have a diagnosed mental illness.

Tragically, Rikers is often called the state’s largest mental health facility, but it offers little real care. Instead, people cycle in and out without the support they need to recover. ATIs, on the other hand, offer robust mental health care in the community: CASES’ Assertive Community Treatment program delivers mobile mental health care in our neighborhoods, leading to a 70 percent decrease in re-arrest rates over two years. Instead of being released with no support, participants receive ongoing help with mental health, education, employment, and housing.

The Fortune Society, meanwhile, provides transitional housing for 523 men and women returning from incarceration. These spaces are more than beds—they are launching pads for transformation. Residents access a wide range of services, including case management, mental health support, substance use counseling, employment readiness, and education. Last year alone, 167 individuals moved from these temporary residences into permanent housing, reuniting with their families and building new lives.

This is a pivotal moment. The city must invest boldly in the infrastructure that truly supports public safety: holistic, community-based ATI and re-entry programs. CASES, the Fortune Society, and the rest of our partners in the ATI and Reentry Coalition are critical pieces of New York’s public safety apparatus. 

This year, we are calling for a $2.4 million increase to our programs. That is just 10 percent of what the New York City Department of Correction spends on overtime each month. Investments in our programs realize true savings: The Osborne Association’s court mitigation services alone saved the city an estimated $162 million in avoided incarceration costs in Fiscal Year 2024.

No one should have to rebuild their life without support. ATI and reentry programs offer proven, cost-effective solutions that improve public safety and help people return to their communities with dignity. Yet these programs remain underfunded. New York must invest in real alternatives to incarceration and support people as they rebuild their lives.

If we are serious about building a safer, more just and more prosperous New York City, we must do everything we can to prevent unnecessary jail time. It’s time to stop asking whether we can afford to fund ATI and reentry services and start asking whether we can afford not to. 

Rob DeLeon is Deputy CEO at The Fortune Society. Jonathan McLean is CEO at CASES.

The post Opinion: Why NYC Must Fund Alternative to Incarceration & Reentry Programs appeared first on City Limits.

By KEN SWEET, Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) — Senate Republicans have moved to cut the funding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by roughly half, as part of President Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” which is likely to lead to hundreds of job cuts at the nation’s financial watchdog agency.

It would be a major blow to the CFPB, which was created after the 2008 financial crisis to police potential bad actors in the financial services industry, and it would be a win for the GOP, who have largely wanted to make the CFPB go away since its creation.

The CFPB is funded through the Federal Reserve, not the Congressional appropriations process. But in the latest version of the bill to come out of the Senate Banking Committee, the CFPB’s funding would be cut from 12% of the Federal Reserve’s profits to 6.5% of the central bank’s profits.

The CFPB requests its annual budget from the Fed every year, effectively as a line of credit from the central bank. It has never needed the entire 12% of the Fed’s profits, but it has come close in previous years to using much of what the Fed would allocate to it. For example, last year the CFPB requested $762.9 million from the Fed, which was close to the transfer cap of $785.4 million.

But cutting the transfer cap by roughly half would mean the CFPB would have to cut its budget significantly or seek to supplement its budget from Congress through the traditional appropriations process, a goal that Republicans have been seeking for years.

“The committee’s language decreases the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) funding cap without affecting the statutory functions of the Bureau,” said Sen. Tim Scott, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

Related Articles

A rundown of recent Trump administration vaccine policy changes

California governor sues Fox News over alleged defamation in story about call with Trump

Republican plan for nationwide private school vouchers deemed in violation of Senate rules

The government cuts key data used in hurricane forecasting, and experts sound an alarm

Democrats are trying to figure out what to do about John Fetterman. One of them is stepping up

Under President Biden, the bureau was a potent regulator that often gave banks and other financial services companies headaches on a regular basis. The previous director, Rohit Chopra, used the bureau to look into a broader array of financial services beyond the banks, investigating bad practices at credit card companies, payday lenders, buy now, pay later companies and other financial technology firms. The bureau has returned billions of dollars to consumers since its creation through its enforcement actions.

But since President Trump came into office, the bureau has been effectively inoperable. Russell Vought, the President’s budget director, is currently the acting director of the Bureau and has stopped all enforcement and supervision work, the bureau is not writing new rules or regulations and employees are being told not to communicate with banks or outside parties. Employees are logging in once or twice a day to check emails, but there is little supervisory or enforcement work happening at the bureau. Even emails to the CFPB’s press office go unanswered.

House Republicans held a hearing on Wednesday attacking Chopra’s work, calling the former director and his appointees out-of-control bureaucrats who targeted small businesses vindictively. The CEO of a company labeled by the GOP as a small business — but was basically a chain of check cashing and payday lending shops — testified that she spent years having to go back and forth with the CFPB over its operations.

The Senate Republicans’ move comes after their original proposal to cut the CFPB’s budget to zero was ruled in violation of Senate rules by the Senate Parliamentarian. Congressional Republicans are using a process known as “reconciliation” to pass this bill, which only requires a 51-vote majority in the Senate to pass.

This new proposal did pass Parliamentarian muster, but Senate Democrats are expected to fight to remove the provision on the floor.

Donald Trump and Republicans tried to shut down the CFPB by gutting its entire operating budget to (zero),” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, and also the original proposer of the CFPB nearly 20 years ago. “Now, Senate Republicans will bring to the floor a proposal that slashes the agency’s available budget so they can hand out more tax breaks for billionaires and billionaire corporations.”