Federal judge restricts Trump administration's efforts to withhold school funding based on DEI
The ruling, issued by New Hampshire federal Judge Landya McCafferty, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, is limited to schools that participate with the plaintiffs in the case, the National Education Association and the Center for Black Educator Development.
McCafferty said Trump's action would "cripple the operations of many educational institutions," and would constitute a violation of executive branch power in overseeing local school districts.
The NEA is the nation's largest teachers union with more than 3 million members.
"The Department's attempt to punish schools for acknowledging diversity, equity and inclusion is not only unconstitutional, but it's also extremely dangerous -- and functions as a direct misalignment with what we know to be just and future forward," Sharif El-Mekki, Center for Black Educator Development CEO and founder, said in a statement.
"Today's decision is a critical step toward protecting the freedom to teach and the freedom to learn."
The suit was filed after the Trump administration demanded that public schools in all 50 states not participate in programs that violate its interpretation of what constitutes a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
The Education Department pushed back against the lawsuit, saying public schools in the United States have embraced "pervasive and repugnant race-based preferences," which "emanated throughout every facet of academia" and did so by holding the "false premise that the United States is built upon 'systemic and structural racism.'"
The administration demanded that public schools comply with existing civil rights laws or risk losing potentially billions of dollars in federal aid earmarked for low-income students.
In her ruling, McCafferty also said the Trump administration's definition of diversity, equity and inclusion is unlawful, and in "stark contrast to the dictionary definition of DEI." She added that the administration's stance is "inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of the phrase."
Trump signed a flurry of executive orders in January that took aim at eliminating DEI programs at various institutions and government departments across the country.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
4 minutes ago
- New York Post
Anti-Trump DA Alvin Bragg sure acts like he has something to hide — we're suing to find out
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg holds potentially hundreds of communications appearing to link his office to senior Biden administration officials and other political actors in connection with his unprecedented criminal prosecution of then-former President Donald Trump. We've asked for those records, and he's not turning them loose. So we're taking him to court. Last September, America First Policy Institute launched a formal investigation into the people and motivations behind Bragg's decision to prosecute Trump. Advertisement Our effort had a simple goal: figuring out whether Bragg's case was a routine legal probe — or lawfare, a politically engineered hit job orchestrated to influence the 2024 election. The charges brought against Trump were extraordinary. Never before has a question of federal campaign-finance law — which the FEC declined to pursue, no less — been morphed into a state-level misdemeanor, already time-barred under New York law, then Frankensteined into a felony by alleging it was committed to conceal some other crime never defined by the prosecution, nor unanimously agreed upon by jury. Advertisement Confusing? That's the point. Bragg's office thrives on obfuscation. Public records should be accessible. Criminal prosecutions should be transparent. This case was neither — and still isn't. We were drawn to investigate because we saw just too many coincidences to ignore. Michael Colangelo, a top DOJ official with a focus on white-collar crime, left his Biden administration post to join Bragg's office just months before Trump was indicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records. Advertisement Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over Bragg's prosecution, had a history of political donations to Biden and to political groups opposed to Trump, the defendant before him. He was officially 'cautioned' on that by the state ethics board. Merchan's daughter Loren worked on Kamala Harris' 2020 campaign and during Trump's trial served as president of Authentic Campaigns, a progressive political consulting firm hired by the Biden-Harris ticket. It all paints a curious picture: A DA who campaigned on a promise to take down Trump, aided by a Biden DOJ veteran, bringing legally contorted charges before a judge with clear partisan connections. Advertisement If this wasn't coordinated, it's one lucky political pile-up. The American people deserve answers. In pursuit of those answers, and in defense of the public's right to know, AFPI submitted a request to Bragg's office under New York's Freedom of Information Law in September 2024. We sought any records that could shed light on whether political influence or coordination played a role in Bragg's decision-making. Our request was specific, lawfully submitted and directly tied to one of the most consequential legal proceedings in modern American history. Ten months later, no records have been produced. None. Though they apparently exist. Instead of providing transparency, the DA's office has engaged in delay, double-talk and silence. We've asked for a list of responsive documents. They won't give one. Advertisement We've asked which of our specific requests the withheld documents pertain to. They won't say. We know, based on our investigation and his office's limited correspondence with us, that the DA possesses hundreds of records of communications with or about political agents who should have had no influence in a 'routine' prosecution, like Lauren Merchan's Authentic Campaigns. Bragg refuses to explain why the public isn't entitled to see them. There is no legal justification for this blackout. No privilege excuses total stonewalling. Advertisement There is only evasion. It's been nearly a year. The records exist, and the DA cannot explain why they remain secret. That alone should raise alarms. AFPI has now turned to the courts to compel compliance. The law does not permit selective transparency by the Manhattan DA. It does not allow politically sensitive cases to be shielded from scrutiny. Advertisement As the New York Legislature declared when it passed the state's open-records law in 1977, 'The people's right to know the process of governmental decision-making and to review the documents leading to determinations is basic to our society.' We agree. Advertisement That's why on July 17, AFPI filed its petition in New York County Superior Court requesting that Bragg's records, whatever they may reveal, be released to the public. The law demands openness, and we intend to see it enforced. Jessica Steinmann is executive general counsel and Jack Casali is an attorney at the Center for Litigation at the America First Policy Institute
Axios
4 minutes ago
- Axios
Scoop: Dems think they can get ahold of Epstein's birthday book
House Democrats are trying to get their hands on the now-infamous book celebrating Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday after it was suggested the disgraced financier's estate is in possession of it, Axios has learned. Why it matters: As the minority party in Congress, Democrats have been largely toothless in their attempts to investigate President Trump. They believe this is a rare opportunity to obtain concrete information. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who is leading the effort, told Axios it would be "very difficult" to obtain the book if it was in the hands of the Department of Justice. "In this case, you literally have a private attorney," said the California Democrat. "A private attorney is much more likely to comply. It's a much easier challenge than going after the administration." Driving the news: Khanna and House Oversight Committee ranking member Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) wrote to attorneys for the Epstein estate's executors asking for a "complete, unredacted copy" of the book, according to a copy of their letter obtained by Axios. Citing Wall Street Journal reporting that Trump submitted a poem and drawing for the book, the lawmakers wrote that it may be "essential" for a probe of the Trump administration's handling of the Epstein matter. Trump has denied the Wall Street Journal's reporting and sued the outlet for libel. What they're saying: " We write with deep concern regarding potential public corruption, abuse of power, and failures in the federal law enforcement response to the Epstein case," Khanna and Garcia wrote. They argued that members of the Oversight Committee should be permitted to review the book before deposing Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell, who reportedly put it together. "Information gathered from this document may also inform the development of legislative reforms addressing sex trafficking networks, financial regulation, or other critical matters," they added. State of play: Brad Edwards, a lawyer for over 200 of Epstein's victims, said in an MSNBC appearance Thursday, "I know the executors of the estate are in possession of that book." "If somebody simply called" Epstein's executors "and said, 'Give us the book,' they would probably give you the book," Edwards said. "They have attorneys, their attorneys are good people. If they didn't just voluntarily turn over the book out of fear of reprisal, Congress could just issue a subpoena to their attorneys ... they would turn the book over immediately." The three attorneys for Epstein's executors did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Axios. What's next: Khanna and Garcia asked that Epstein's estate turn over the book by August 10. Khanna told Axios: "I will make sure, if we get it, that whatever we do in terms of releasing it is what the victims want, what the victims' attorney wants, and not just trying to score partisan points." "If the victims don't want certain things, I am going to guarantee that the victims are the topmost consideration," he said. "But I do believe that they will want some of it released and once we get it, we can."
Axios
4 minutes ago
- Axios
Salt Lake City named USDA hub in federal reshuffling
The U.S. Department of Agriculture is moving most of its employees from Washington, D.C., to five hubs, including Salt Lake City. Why it matters: Shifting operations to Utah's capital could give the state's farmers and ranchers more access to federal officials — and potentially shape policies that better serve the Mountain West. The big picture: The move, announced Thursday by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, will close nearly all USDA offices in D.C. It is part of the Trump administration's effort to cut costs and consolidate the federal government. The other agriculture hubs include: Raleigh, North Carolina; Kansas City, Missouri; Indianapolis; and Fort Collins, Colorado. Despite the relocation, USDA has maintained that its critical functions "will continue uninterrupted," according to a news release. Reality check: While Utah's cost of living is lower than D.C.'s, it still has one of the nation's most expensive housing markets. Salt Lake City's federal salary locality rate is about 17%. Zoom in: Utah's farmland totaled about 10.5 million acres in 2023 — one-fifth of the state's total land area, according to the University of Utah's Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. Utah ranks 25th among U.S. states for total farmland. What they're saying: Utah Republican leaders, including Gov. Spencer Cox and U.S. Sen. John Curtis, celebrated Rollins' Thursday announcement. "The USDA's decision to refocus on its core mission, supporting farmers, families, and rural communities, is long overdue," Curtis posted on X. "Utahns are the best at advocating for and advancing American agriculture." The other side: U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) called the decision a "half-baked proposal," warning it could affect the USDA's "ability to provide critical services for Americans" and farmers.
