FORT SMITH, Ark. – The ACLU of Arkansas, joined by several Arkansas public libraries, and advocacy groups including the Freedom to Read Foundation, filed suit Friday challenging a new law designed to amend current state law regarding obscene library materials to prevent distribution to minors.

The plaintiffs allege that the law violate the First and 14th constitutional amendments regarding freedom of speech and equal protection and amounts to a form of censorship that endangers librarians.

In the court documents filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, the plaintiffs claim:

Section 1 of Act 372 makes it a criminal offense, punishable by imprisonment for
up to a year, to make available, provide, or show to a minor an item that meets the definition of “harmful to minors” (the “Availability Provision”). This will necessarily force libraries and
bookstores to confine to a secure “adults only” area—and so to segregate from their general
patrons and customers—any item that might be deemed harmful to the youngest minor, even if there is no constitutional basis for limiting its availability to older minors or adults.

Where libraries and booksellers lack the space or resources to construct “adults only” areas, their only choice will be to remove all materials which might be deemed harmful to their youngest, least developed patrons or customers”

Hayden Kirby, a 17-year-old high school student plaintiff in the case also states in the legal filings that Act 372 limits her access to information. “By joining this lawsuit, I hope to make a difference in preserving the rights of youth like me across the state,” she said.

“To restrict the spaces I’ve accessed freely throughout my life is outrageous to me. I want to fight for our rights to intellectual freedom and ensure that libraries remain spaces where young Arkansans can explore diverse perspectives,” Kirby added.

Three Crawford County parents filed their own lawsuit May 26 against the county quorum court, the library system board and interim library director, alleging that the “unlawful censorship of materials” in the libraries’ “social sections” violates the First Amendment.

Some of the books in question include a children’s guide to LGBTQ+ Pride flags and a retelling of the Cinderella fairy tale with gay characters, according to the parents’ complaint.

“None of these books could fathomably be accused of ‘grooming,’ ‘pornography,’ or ‘exposing children to explicit sexual ideas or imagery,’” as opponents have said they are, the complaint states.

The Arkansas Advocate reported all five Crawford County library branches moved children’s books with LGBTQ+ topics to a segregated “social section” in December after community members objected to their availability at multiple quorum court meetings. Former system director Deidre Grzymala said this was “a compromise.” She later resigned in February.

Some of the books in question include a children’s guide to LGBTQ+ Pride flags and a retelling of the Cinderella fairy tale with gay characters, according to the parents’ complaint.

“None of these books could fathomably be accused of ‘grooming,’ ‘pornography,’ or ‘exposing children to explicit sexual ideas or imagery,’” as opponents have said they are, the complaint states.

Progressive political groups charge that the rush to have Act 372 passed and signed into law was purely a part of the war being waged across the United States by so-called parental rights groups, such as Florida based ‘Moms for Liberty,’ objecting to materials that contain LGBTQ+ materials or themes.

Today, a broad coalition of authors, publishers, booksellers, librarians, and readers filed suit challenging AR Act 372, a law that would restrict access to books in bookstores & libraries, and in the process violate the First & Fourteenth Amendment rights of our reading public. https://t.co/IVURTCefxZ

— Arkansas Library Association (@ArLALibrary) June 2, 2023

The bill was signed into law by Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders on March 31 and is due to go into effect on August 1.

Related:

Moms for Liberty hiding behind front groups targeting schools

By Peter White | SAN FRANCISCO – The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on two cases this month that could prohibit consideration of race in college admissions, undoing a 45-year history of Affirmative Action dating back to 1978.

Last October, conservative activist Edward Blum, president of Students for Fair Admissions, filed a lawsuit against Harvard claiming it discriminated against Asian-American applicants. Lower courts found no evidence of that claim, and no students testified against the current race-based policies at Harvard or in a separate suit involving the University of North Carolina.

Still, given the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, many expect an end to the policy, which supporters say has helped boost enrollment in colleges and universities for historically underrepresented groups.

“Progressives, patriots, and free thinkers of all colors and creeds and sexual orientations need to unite in the struggle to preserve the core American principles of inclusivity and multicultural democracy,” said civil rights lawyer Lisa Holder, president of the Equal Justice Society (EJS) in Oakland, California.

Holder spoke with reporters last week during a news briefing organized by Ethnic Media Services. She noted Affirmative Action is the best way to undo the historical legacy of inequality and discrimination in higher education, adding that California schools would become more segregated without it.

“We’re looking at apartheid schools where children of color are not getting access to opportunity. That is un-American,” she said. Holder noted the consensus among social scientists that diverse educational environments are 35% more productive than those that are more homogeneous.

Students who testified before the high court in both the Harvard case as well as a separate case involving the University of North Carolina – also filed by Blum’s group – stressed the advantages of being part of a more diverse student body.

Echoes of Roe v. Wade

In its 1978 Regents of University of California v. Bakke decision, the Supreme Court ruled that schools’ use of Affirmative Action policies to enhance student diversity is constitutional.

Tomas Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) and former member of the Los Angeles County Board of Education – where he served for two decades – worries this current court is poised to overturn that longstanding precedent.

“We don’t know when it will come down,” Saenz said. But given the court’s stated views on race-conscious Affirmative Action policies, he expects the justices will overturn it just as they did with the Dobbs ruling last year overturning Roe v. Wade.

“I consider that to be the likely outcome,” he said, noting the Supreme Court revisited the issue of race conscious Affirmative Action in higher education on three separate occasions. Each time the court majority reasserted that the Bakke precedent continued to be the law.

“So, overturning that precedent would be extraordinary and on a par with the Dobbs decision of last year,” Saenz said.

He also predicted that opponents of Affirmative Action would seek to expand the court’s rationale. “This case will have nothing whatsoever to say about Affirmative Action in employment or contracting. And anyone who asserts otherwise, is misleading you,” Saenz said.

“You will hear folks from the right assert that somehow this Supreme Court decision also means that ethnic studies, even critical race theory, must be eliminated from schools.”  On the contrary, Saenz says the decision will say nothing about curriculum.

Impacts on campus diversity

\John C. Yang, president and CEO of Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC) reiterated that lower courts found no evidence of discrimination against Asian-Americans in Harvard’s admissions process, which is the basis of the lawsuit.

“An admissions process considering race… remains necessary to ensure that equally qualified students from communities of color have the same access as privileged white students,” Yang said.

He noted 28% of the incoming Harvard class are Asian-Americans and their numbers have quadrupled since 1978 when the Bakke decision was issued.

“Any suggestion that somehow Asian-Americans are being discriminated against is just belied by these simple facts,” Yang continued. If Affirmative Action is overturned, he anticipated campus diversity at Harvard would decrease from 14% to 6% for Blacks and from 14% to 9% for Latinos.

“At the end of the day, we have to recognize that we are not in a race-blind society. Our lived experiences should not be up for debate,” Yang said.

What about legacy admissions?

Michele Siqueiros has been supporting greater college access for students of color since 2004, and says it hasn’t been that long since women, Black, Latino, Indigenous and Asian-American students were even permitted to attend universities.

“Affirmative Action alone was never intended to be the panacea,” said Siqueiros, president of The Campaign for College Opportunity, a California-based non-profit.

“We must do everything in our power to provide all students an equal opportunity to pursue a college education,” she stressed, adding that with the anticipated SCOTUS ruling more will need to be done to ensure universities do not discriminate against students of color.

Siqueiros also pointed out that conservative opponents of Affirmative Action have nothing to say about legacy admissions – which can account for a quarter or more of all admissions at Ivy League schools like Harvard – or about recruiters exclusively visiting rich, wealthy, and predominantly white high schools.

“There are a lot of practices in higher education that should be challenged and removed,” said Siqueiros. “It’s really unfortunate that Affirmative Action is the one that’s being attacked today.”

******************************************************************************************

The preceding article was published as part of an ongoing partnership between Ethnic Media Services and the Los Angeles Blade. For additional information or to learn more about Ethnic Media Services click on the link embedded in the logo above.

MEMPHIS – U. S. District Court Judge Thomas L. Parker of the U. S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee declared Tennessee’s anti-drag Adult Entertainment Act to be unconstitutional.

Parker’s ruling comes after a two-day trial last month. A Shelby County-Memphis based LGBTQ theatre company, Friends of George’s, had sued the state of Tennessee, claiming the law unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

In April Judge Parker ordered a temporary injunction halting the just enacted Tennessee law that criminalizes some drag performances, hours before it was set to take effect Saturday, April 1. In his 15 page ruling ordering the temporary injunction Parker wrote:

“If Tennessee wishes to exercise its police power in restricting speech it considers obscene, it must do so within the constraints and framework of the United States Constitution. […] The Court finds that, as it stands, the record here suggests that when the legislature passed this Statute, it missed the mark.”

Attorneys for the theatre company had argued that drag performances were an artform and protected speech under the first amendment.

In his 70 page ruling Friday, June 2, 2023, Parker wrote:

“After considering the briefs and evidence presented at trial, the Court finds that—despite
Tennessee’s compelling interest in protecting the psychological and physical wellbeing of
children—the Adult Entertainment Act (“AEA”) is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL restriction on
the freedom of speech.”

“The Court concludes that the AEA is both unconstitutionally vague and substantially
overbroad. The AEA’s “harmful to minors” standard applies to minors of all ages, so it fails to
provide fair notice of what is prohibited, and it encourages discriminatory enforcement. The
AEA is substantially overbroad because it applies to public property or “anywhere” a minor
could be present.”

Read the entire ruling:

Related:

Federal Judge stops drag ban in Tennessee, cites First Amendment

BOISE — An Idaho law criminalizing gender-affirming health care for transgender youth is being challenged by families in federal court.

In a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Idaho, Wrest Collective, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, and Groombridge, Wu, Baughman & Stone LLP, two Idaho families assert that HB 71, signed into law by Governor Brad Little earlier this year, violates the rights of transgender youth and their parents under the U.S. Constitution.

“Being able to live my life as my true self has been a long journey and my medical care has been an important part of that journey. My family, my doctors, and I have worked together to make decisions about my medical care, and it’s shocking to have politicians take those decisions away from us,” said Plaintiff Jane Doe, a 16-year-old transgender girl. “Trans people like myself deserve the same chance at safety and liberty as everyone else, but this law specifically targets us and our health care for no good reason. I’m 16–I should be hanging out with my friends and planning my future instead of fighting my State for the health care I need.”

“This law is a dangerous intrusion upon the rights and lives of Idaho families. Our state should be a safe place to raise every child, including transgender youth, and HB 71 threatens to deny them the safety and dignity they deserve,” said Amy Dundon, Legislative Strategist with the ACLU of Idaho. “We welcome this opportunity to defend the transgender youth of Idaho and their families from this discriminatory political attack and we won’t stop defending them until each one has all the care and support they need to thrive.”

“We are determined to protect the transgender youth of Idaho, their families, and their medical providers from this unjust and dangerous attack on their rights and lives,” said Li Nowlin-Sohl, Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “This health care is supported by every major medical organization in the U.S. and is critical for the futures of transgender youth across the state. We will not rest until this unconstitutional law is struck down.”

The challenge filed today is the eighth legal challenge by the ACLU and its nationwide affiliate network so far against a wave of bans targeting health care for transgender youth. The ACLU and the ACLU of Arkansas filed the first such challenge against the first such law in the country in 2021 and similar challenges have been filed in Indiana, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Montana, Kentucky, and Nebraska. 

Related:

Idaho bans gender-affirming care for trans kids

ST. GEORGE, Utah — Today, the Southern Utah Drag Stars (Drag Stars) filed a lawsuit against the city of St. George, Utah, which denied the organization a special events permit for a family-friendly drag show.

The city’s refusal to grant a permit is part of a years-long effort to target drag performances and LGBTQ+ pride events in violation of the First and 14th Amendments, as well as the Utah Constitution. Legal counsel intends to seek a preliminary injunction to allow Drag Stars to host its family-friendly drag show in June.

On March 3, Mitski Avalōx applied for a City of St. George special events permit to host a family-friendly drag event, Allies & Community Drag Show Festival, at J.C. Snow Park. A few weeks later, the city denied her application, alleging that she violated its advertising ordinance, an obscure local rule which prohibits advertising for special events until the city grants a permit.

The advertising ordinance was not routinely enforced, in part because it is unworkable – permits are typically not issued until the day of or the day before events, making advertising an event practically impossible.

Drag Stars appealed the city’s permit denial and at the hearing at least one city council member acknowledged that the advertising ban is not enforceable, but the city nonetheless denied Drag Stars’ appeal

To make matters worse, while Avalōx’s application was pending, St. George decided to suspend considering any new special event permits for six months, denying Drag Stars the opportunity to submit a new permit application after the initial rejection.

The city later exempted “city sponsored” events from the six month ban on new permit applications, creating a scheme whereby city officials selectively grant permits to favored events while denying all others. St. George’s special events policies discriminate against drag performances and are so opaque that no one can know what is allowed and what is not.

“Requiring drag performers to meet unreasonable standards to receive a permit, or denying them these permits without legitimate justification, is censorship,” said Valentina De Fex, Senior Staff Attorney with the ACLU of Utah. “Our lawsuit challenges the attempt by elected officials, who must uphold the rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution and Utah State Constitution, to push subjective viewpoints of what they deem appropriate.” Regarding the impact of this case, De Fex stated, “With this filing we continue our commitment to stop efforts to discriminate against and silence LGBTQ+ and gender-diverse individuals in Utah.”

“Drag is dance, fashion, and music — it is also deeply rooted in political speech — all protected by the First Amendment,” said Emerson Sykes, Senior Staff Attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “This is the latest offense in a larger pattern of attacks discriminating against gender-diverse and LGBTQ+ people and their rights in Utah and throughout the country.”

Just last year, lawmakers in six states proposed bills to ban drag. Under some of these bills, a business would be considered a “sexually oriented enterprise” – and therefore be subject to strict zoning requirements and fees – just for letting female comedians wear pants or male magicians grow their hair out. Drag performers and host venues across the country have had no choice but to move to higher security or cancel performances altogether.

Governmental attempts to restrict drag performances claim to protect children from so-called obscene material. However, drag is not obscene, and restricting access to a supportive community only causes more harm to trans and LGBTQ+ youth, who are already at a higher risk of depression and suicide.

“The city of St. George is violating the First Amendment rights of Drag Stars and discriminating against them through a façade of permits and ordinances that have never been applied in this manner with any other group or organization,” said Jeremy Creelan, Partner at Jenner & Block. “LGBTQ+ performers are entitled to protections under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and we are asking the court to protect these fundamental rights and put a stop to this deeply troubling attack on free expression.”

Related:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQm_BYB9rjc

AUSTIN, Texas – Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, and Transgender Law Center today pledged to file a lawsuit against a sweeping new law banning transgender youth from accessing medically necessary health care that the Texas Legislature passed today.

Texas Senate Bill 14 bans the only evidence-based care for gender dysphoria for transgender people under 18 and aims to strip doctors of their medical licenses for providing their patients with the care they know to be medically necessary. Texas lawmakers have ignored the warnings of transgender youth, their families, and the medical establishment about the harms of this law. Similar restrictions in Alabama and Arkansas have been enjoined by federal courts, and legal advocates have filed challenges in federal court to bans enacted in Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Montana. A state court judge in Missouri recently blocked enforcement of the Missouri attorney general’s emergency order blocking the provision of gender-affirming care.

The LGBTQ legal advocates today issued the following joint statement:

“We will be filing a lawsuit to protect transgender youth in Texas from being stripped of access to health care that keeps them healthy and alive. Coming on top of the effort last year to classify providing medically necessary and scientifically proven care to transgender youth as child abuse and threatening to tear Texas families with transgender children apart, an effort currently blocked in state court, Texas lawmakers have seen fit to double down.

“They are hellbent on joining the growing roster of states determined to jeopardize the health and lives of transgender youth, in direct opposition to the overwhelming body of scientific and medical evidence supporting this care as appropriate and necessary. Transgender youth in Texas deserve the support and care necessary to give them the same chance to thrive as their peers. Medically necessary health care is a critical part of helping transgender adolescents succeed in school, establish healthy relationships with their friends and family, and live authentically as themselves. We will defend the rights of transgender youth in court, just as we have done in other states engaging in this anti-science and discriminatory fear-mongering.”

Related:

Gender-affirming care for trans kids ban sent to Texas governor

JACKSON, Miss. — The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Mississippi have filed a lawsuit against Harrison County School District (HCSD) after school officials told a graduating transgender student she could not wear a dress or heeled shoes to her graduating ceremony as requested by her and her parents.

L.B. is a transgender girl and graduating senior of the class of 2023 at Harrison Central High School. She has been looking forward to finally walking across the stage at her high school graduation this Saturday, May 20, and picked out a dress and pair of heeled shoes months ago to wear under her traditional cap and gown in accordance with the school’s dress code for female students. On May 9, L.B. and her parents were informed by Principal Kelly Fuller that the school would enforce the male dress code against L.B. In a call with L.B.’s mother, Harrison County School District Superintendent Mitchell King said that L.B. “needs to wear pants, socks, and shoes like a boy” in statements that repeatedly misgendered her.

The superintendent cited a written dress code policy, distributed last week, that requires girls to wear white dresses and boys to wear black suits. There is no reported enforcement of this policy against students who are not transgender and school officials have not taken any steps to check the planned outfits for other students.

“My graduation is supposed to be a moment of pride and celebration and school officials want to turn it into a moment of humiliation and shame,” said L.B., a senior at Harrison Central High School. “The clothing I’ve chosen is fully appropriate for the ceremony and the superintendent’s objections to it are entirely unfair to myself, my family, and all transgender students like me. I have the right to celebrate my graduation as who I am, not who anyone else wants me to be.”

“It’s deeply offensive the school would choose to take a celebration of our daughter and her accomplishments and attempt to ruin it with such discriminatory action,” said Samantha, mother of L.B. “Like any parent of a graduating senior, we’re eager to see L.B. cross this critical threshold and enter a new stage of her life, but the superintendent is threatening this once-in-a-lifetime moment for our family. We’re so proud of our daughter and are determined to protect her from this baseless attack on her rights and her identity.”

“L.B. should be focused on celebrating this important milestone alongside her peers; however, this targeted attack by the leaders of the Harrison County School District seeks to strip her of her right to celebrate this occasion as her true self,” said McKenna Raney-Gray, staff attorney at the ACLU of Mississippi. “While we are deeply disappointed in the conduct of the Harrison County School District, we remain committed to defending the rights and autonomy of trans youth across the state, and hope that the court agrees that all students in Mississippi have the right to live as their authentic selves.”

The lawsuit, filed today in federal court, seeks an immediate temporary restraining order allowing L.B. to wear her chosen outfit. 

The complaint can be found here and TRO motion can be found here.

 TALLAHASSEE – Three Florida parents have asked a federal court to issue a temporary restraining order immediately blocking enforcement of SB 254, which Governor DeSantis signed into law Wednesday.

The families, who have a pending challenge to the state Boards of Medicine and Osteopathic Medicine rules banning established medical care for their children and other transgender adolescents are also challenging provisions in SB 254 that codify those rules into state law, add criminal and civil penalties, and create additional barriers for families with transgender adolescents.

Advocates for the families will be in court on Friday to argue their motions to temporarily block the Boards of Medicine rules and the healthcare ban provisions in SB 254 so that they can get their children urgently needed medical care as the case continues.

The families are represented by Southern Legal Counsel, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the Human Rights Campaign, which issued the following statement:

This is a state of emergency for Florida parents, who are already being forced to watch their kids suffer rather than get them the safe and effective healthcare they need and that will allow them to thrive. Today, Governor DeSantis doubled down on the nightmare created by the Florida Boards of Medicine rules by signing SB 254 into law. 

This law ignores science, unconstitutionally inserts the state into family privacy and parental decision-making, deliberately provokes family conflict by inviting challenges to established custody orders, and tramples on the rights and wellbeing of transgender adolescents. 

We are asking the court to take swift action to block the ban on access to essential healthcare in SB 254, as well as the Boards of Medicine bans, to stop further harm to transgender youth and their families while the plaintiffs’ case continues.

WASHINGTON – Republican U.S. Rep. George Santos (N.Y.) was indicted Wednesday by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York on 13 criminal counts of fraud, money laundering, theft of public funds, and making false statements.

The congressman is expected to be arraigned later today. For several months, investigators from multiple law enforcement agencies have been looking into allegations that he violated campaign finance laws and committed other financial crimes.

Beginning shortly after Santos took office, news reports revealed that he had lied about vast swaths of his life and career, fabricated stories – claiming, for example, to have survived an assassination attempt – and engaged in various schemes.

Wednesday’s indictment alleges that Santos and an unnamed “political consultant” illegally redirected donations that were supposed to support his Congressional race to instead cover personal expenses like “luxury designer clothing and credit card payments.”

The charging documents also accuse Santos of falsely claiming to be unemployed to pocket $20,304 in unemployment insurance benefits from the state of New York and $24,744 from the federal Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security Act while he was actually working for a Florida investment firm, earning an annual $120,000 salary.

Additionally, prosecutors say Santos lied on federal disclosure documents required for every member of Congress.

Calls for Santos’s expulsion from Congress were renewed with the news of Wednesday’s indictment.

“That’s something for the House conference to decide on,” White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters during Wednesday’s briefing. “They want to show the American people what their conference looks like; that’s up to them.”

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rep. Pete Aguilar (Calif.) said, “there is there is one person who can make this change: Speaker McCarthy.”

“It’s just an unfortunate thing that that we’re all colleagues together, and this level of fraud that’s been perpetrated on the people of New York,” Aguilar added.

For his part, McCarthy told CNN Santos “will go through his time in trial, and let’s find out how the outcome is,” while Rep. Steve Scalise, the House majority leader, made similar comments during a press conference, telling reporters: “In America, there’s a presumption of innocence, but they’re serious charges. He’s going to have to go through the legal process.” 

UPDATED:

Santos, 34, was released from custody following his arraignment at a Long Island federal courthouse, about five hours after he surrendered to authorities, The Associated Press reported.

The New York Times noted that his lawyer discussed his intent to seek re-election as part of the bail setting and said that he would need the ability to leave the state “to engage in that election activity.”

The judge permitted additional travel, so long as Santos received prior authorization from court officials. Santos was released on the $500,000 bond secured by three individuals, whose identities are not public. He will be confined to New York, Washington, D.C., and places in between.

Facing reporters in a press conference after the afternoon hearing on the steps of the courthouse at 100 Federal Plaza in Central Islip on Long Island, Santos said: “It’s a witch hunt because it makes no sense that in four months, four months — five months, I’m indicted.” The embattled congressman then tried to deflect by comparing his legal difficulties to the Hunter Biden investigation which prompted onlookers to boo him.

Media Matters senior researcher Jason S. Campbell captured a portion of the video and tweeted it:

George Santos: "It's a witch hunt because it makes no sense that in four months, four months — five months, I'm indicted" [boos follow] pic.twitter.com/rzqBgrVT3s

— Jason S. Campbell (@JasonSCampbell) May 10, 2023

Journalist Aaron Rupar also tweeted portions of the press conference:

"It's a witch hunt" — George Santos

Santos is then booed when he tries some Hunter Biden whataboutism pic.twitter.com/i2LSurGJKV

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 10, 2023

George Santos: "I appreciate everybody's patience with my presence in Congress" pic.twitter.com/OKuj449kxy

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 10, 2023

"This has been an experience for a book, or something like that" — Santos is already thinking ahead pic.twitter.com/DgRTODay2I

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 10, 2023

Read the indictment here: (link)

NEW YORK – Federal prosecutors have charged Out New York U.S. Representative George Santos with criminal violations of federal statutes.

Originally reported by CNN Tuesday, the exact nature of the charges couldn’t immediately be learned but the FBI and the Justice Department public integrity prosecutors in New York and Washington have been examining allegations of false statements in Santos’ campaign finance filings and other claims.

CNN also reported that the congressman’s attorney declined to comment. Spokespeople for the Brooklyn US Attorney’s Office, the Justice Department and the FBI also declined to comment.

Congressman Santos is expected to appear as soon as Wednesday at the Theodore Roosevelt Federal Courthouse in the civic center of Brooklyn, where the charges have been filed under seal.

Santos has been under fire for months after a series of exposés revealed the congressman has lied about virtually every aspect of his biography. Additionally, a complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission by the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center alleges a wide scope of campaign finance law violations by the openly gay freshman lawmaker and his 2022 campaign committee, Devolder-Santos for Congress.

Allegations of campaign financial malfeasance is thought to have triggered the federal probe by the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York and the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The U.S. House Ethics Committee on announced in March that it had voted unanimously to open an investigation of Santos over the allegations of financial and an incident of sexual misconduct.

The subcommittee’s inquiry will evaluate whether the embattled congressman’s required financial disclosures as a candidate contained illegal omissions or conflicts of interest, as well as an allegation by an applicant to his congressional office that Santos made unwanted sexual advances towards him.

U.S. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said he will look at the charges before determining if he thinks Santos should be removed from Congress.

“I’ll look at the charges,” the California Republican told CNN on Tuesday.