Federal judge partially blocks Trump's effort to deny funding to pro-DEI public schools
U.S. District Judge Landya McCafferty said the effort by Trump's Education Department to block federal funding to public schools that continue to promote diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs likely violates the First Amendment, presenting what she described as "textbook viewpoint discrimination."
At issue is a memo sent by the Education Department this month to public schools nationwide, threatening to withhold Title I federal funds from public schools that continue to "unfairly" promote DEI views or programs.
The effort sparked an immediate wave of concern, and lawsuits, across the country from education groups that cited the importance of Title I funds as a critical source of funding for many low-income public schools.
The DEI-slashing effort was met with a wave of court challenges, including a lawsuit filed by the National Education Association, the group's New Hampshire affiliate chapter, and the Center for Black Educator Development, who challenged the case in New Hampshire's federal court.
Two other U.S. courts are slated to hear similar challenges to the Education Department's effort, with one case in Washington, D.C., expected to be heard as early as this week.
McCafferty's ruling stopped short of issuing a nationwide injunction to block the policy in all 50 states.
Rather, it blocks the Trump administration from halting the disbursement of Title I funds to any schools that employ or contract with plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
"The right to speak freely and to promote diversity of ideas and programs is ... one of the chief distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes," McCafferty said in her 82-page opinion, adding that the actions taken by the Education Department "threate[n] to erode these foundational principles."
She also said the Trump administration failed to provide the court with a sufficient definition of the DEI programs that were at risk as a result of the anti-DEI push.
The order comes after the Trump administration and the plaintiffs in the lawsuit reached a short-term agreement to delay the policy from taking force.
That agreement was slated to expire Thursday, prompting the court to rule on the matter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
11 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
‘Who speaks for the Jews?' The ADL, some say. Wrong, say others.
In a time of escalating global crises, including Israel's devastating siege of Gaza, which the UN has called Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Phillips argues that disproportionate criticism of Israel reveals latent antisemitism. But this ignores both the extraordinary scale of suffering in Gaza and the billions in US military aid that make this war possible. Holding a US-funded ally to account is not bigotry — it's our moral responsibility. Advertisement Today, perhaps more than ever, we need principled, not punitive, leadership from the ADL. Sandy Light Cambridge Caroline Light Belmont Miriam Cubstead Watertown Caroline Light is a senior lecturer and director of undergraduate studies in women, gender, and sexuality studies at Harvard University. The views expressed here are her own and do not represent the university. Advertisement 'The Anti-Defamation League really is a bulwark' against hate My compliments to Colette A.M. Phillips for writing 'In defense of the Anti-Defamation League.' She is spot-on: Whatever the targeted group, violence can materialize from lack of education, prejudicial upbringing, or visceral hate, as shown, in the case of Jews, in Pittsburgh (mass shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue, Oct. 27, 2018); Boulder, Colo. (fire attack June 1 of this year on a group marching in solidarity with the hostages taken from Israel on Oct. 7, 2023); and Marietta, Ga. (the conviction in 1913, and subsequent lynching in 1915, of Leo Frank). The Anti-Defamation League really is a bulwark against people who have hate issues. It tries to raise awareness that there are better ways to bring respect and understanding for all people when there is division in society. Edward Sloan North Andover 'I have never felt represented or protected by the ADL' As a Jewish person who believes that all lives are sacred, including those of Palestinians, I have never felt represented or protected by the Anti-Defamation League. While in principle the ADL allows that not all criticism of Israel is antisemitic, the organization has not afforded the same benefit of the doubt to pro-Palestinian protesters as it has done, for example, to Elon Musk for giving what appeared to be Colette A.M. Phillips argues that, since Israel's actions in Gaza have generated more protest than other atrocities around the globe, this protest must be a 'fig leaf' for antisemitism. This argument ignores both the scale of devastation — Gaza has been cited as Advertisement But for me, the reason to protest goes deeper. Growing up Jewish, I was told not only that Israel is the sacred ancestral home of our people but also that we have a special responsibility to ensure that what happened to us in the Holocaust does not happen to any people. When I see mass atrocities being committed by the country that is said to be my home, how can I remain silent? Ben Allen Boston 'The ADL is now a partisan organization' I am a Jewish American and found Colette A.M. Phillips's op-ed very disturbing. Despite claiming that 'criticizing a government is fair game,' she then says much political criticism of Israel is not fair game. Instead, she establishes an impossible test for permissible criticism: that the speaker must prove their criticism is not 'selective.' People have countless reasons for caring about some issues more than others. It has never been right to censor speech for its selectivity nor the imputed motives behind selectivity. Yet Phillips wants us to believe that in the case of Israel, we should reduce all special concern to hidden antisemitism. This is trying to win an argument without making it. Phillips falls back on the exhausted argument that 'we have learned to listen' to the oppressed. They decide what counts as bigoted. Even if true in principle, Advertisement Alex Gourevitch Cambridge The writer is an associate professor of political science at Brown University. The views expressed here are his own and do not represent the university. 'All of us are capable of monstrous acts' I was raised with awareness of antisemitism — my grandparents fled the anti-Jewish pogroms in Ukraine, and many family friends were German, Polish, or Austrian survivors of the Holocaust. In 1980, my junior high school in Arlington was one of the first cohorts to use the Facing History and Ourselves curriculum. We studied the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, and the war in Cambodia. It was painful to hear specifics of the slaughter of Jews and of the passivity of bystanders who knew but did not act in opposition. However, in studying the Holocaust in the context of these other atrocities, it was always clear that this particular history was part of a much larger pattern of cruelty and resistance. As Jews, our suffering was not something that made us 'special'; rather, it was a dramatic example of recurring human barbarism. The ADL's defense of fascist acts is a bitter irony. Those who claim Israel is not committing genocide in Gaza are willfully ignoring mass starvation and heartless slaughter. It feels excruciating, but we must be honest that Americans, Israelis, Jews, indeed all of us are capable of monstrous acts, and we must put aside our pride and act with determination to stop the horror. Julia Halperin Jamaica Plain
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, 'I was born here in the states, East LA bro!' They want to 'send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood,' American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. 'Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,' Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. 'No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all,' Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a 'broad profile' and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors 'cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.' She also asked: 'What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?' Solve the daily Crossword
Politico
40 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump issues order imposing new global tariff rates effective Aug. 7
According to the text of the first order, the Trump administration is maintaining its 10 percent so-called baseline tariff on countries where the U.S. has a trade surplus — i.e. it sells more American products to those countries than it imports from them. And it officially imposes the 15 percent rate that Trump agreed to set as part of negotiations with leading trading partners like the European Union, Japan and South Korea. The Philippines, Vietnam and Indonesia also reached tentative agreements with the administration that set their duties at 19-20 percent. Other countries, mainly smaller economies, face far higher rates, topping out at 41 percent for Syria, which is emerging from a civil war, and 40 percent for Myanmar, which is still in the midst of one. The Southeast Asian nation of Laos also faces a 40 percent tariff, and Iraq will be hit with a 35 percent duty. Bigger trading partners like Switzerland also face a significant tariff hike — to 39 percent. Trump also signed a second order raising tariffs on Canada, one of the country's biggest trading partners, from 25 to 35 percent for goods that are not compliant with an existing North American trade deal known as the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. The senior official told reporters that Canada hasn't 'shown the same level of constructiveness that we've seen from the Mexican side.' Trump announced earlier Thursday that he was maintaining the 25 percent tariff on Mexico for another 90 days after a phone call with their president, Claudia Sheinbaum. Higher tariffs on Canada take effect Friday. The executive actions suggests that Trump decided to punish countries that he did not believe offered enough concessions since the president first threatened to impose his 'reciprocal' tariffs on April 2. 'Some trading partners have agreed to, or are on the verge of agreeing to, meaningful trade and security commitments with the United States, thus signaling their sincere intentions to permanently remedy the trade barriers,' the global order says. 'Other trading partners, despite having engaged in negotiations, have offered terms that, in my judgment, do not sufficiently address imbalances in our trading relationship or have failed to align sufficiently with the United States on economic and national-security matters,' 'There are also some trading partners that have failed to engage in negotiations with the United States or to take adequate steps to align sufficiently with the United States on economic and national security matters,' it continues. White House officials said Thursday night that they expect to strike additional agreements with countries ahead of the new Aug. 7 implementation date for the tariffs. 'We have some deals, and I don't want to get ahead of the president on those deals,' the senior administration official told reporters. 'I'll just say generally, we have more to come.' Taiwan is hoping to be one of those countries. The semiconductor powerhouse faces a 20 percent tariff in a week's time, but in a statement released late Thursday, Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te suggested the rate was 'provisional.' 'Due to the procedural arrangement of the negotiations, the Taiwan-U.S. sides have not yet concluded the final meeting. Therefore, the U.S. has temporarily announced a 20% tariff rate for Taiwan,' President Lai said. 'Once an agreement is reached in the future, there is hope that the tariff rate can be further lowered. Both sides will also continue negotiations on supply chain cooperation and issues related to Section 232 tariffs.'
