Justice Department ends bid to cancel ABA's domestic violence grants
A federal judge in Washington on Thursday administratively closed the ABA's lawsuit against the Justice Department, putting the case on hiatus for two years in response to a request from both sides. Either party could reopen the case 'if circumstances warrant,' the ABA and Justice Department said in a joint status report, opens new tab filed on Monday.
Thursday's order by U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper clears the way for the ABA to receive the full amount of grants it had been awarded by the Justice Department to train lawyers to represent victims of domestic and sexual violence, which the department had canceled.
An ABA spokesperson declined to comment, and the Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday. An attorney for the ABA, Skye Perryman of the nonprofit legal group Democracy Forward, said in a statement that the Justice Department had no basis to cancel the ABA's domestic violence grants.
'We are pleased to have defeated attempts to retaliate against our client for its exercise of its Constitutional rights–and to have restored this critical funding," Perryman said.
The ABA sued the Justice Department in April, claiming the agency illegally terminated federal grants in retaliation for the lawyer organization's public criticism of U.S. President Donald Trump's administration.
The ABA, which has about 150,000 members and advocates for the legal profession, said in its lawsuit that the Justice Department and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi violated free speech protections under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment by halting funding in retaliation for the ABA "taking positions the administration disfavors."
The Justice Department terminated the grants on April 10 — one day after U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche sent a memo barring Justice Department attorneys from traveling to or speaking at ABA events, according to the complaint.
Blanche said the organization had engaged in "activist causes" contrary to the department's mission, according to the ABA's lawsuit.
The Justice Department asked the judge to dismiss the case, arguing that the court lacked authority to compel the federal government to pay money out under a contract.
Cooper on May 14 granted the ABA's request for a preliminary injunction to stop the government from terminating the grants as the case moved forward, writing, opens new tab that the ABA's 'First Amendment injury is concrete and ongoing.'
Read more:
American Bar Association sues US Justice Department, claiming retaliation over grants
Judge temporarily blocks canceling of ABA grants amid Trump crackdown
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
9 minutes ago
- The Independent
Education Department says it will release billions in remaining withheld grant money for schools
The Trump administration is releasing billions of dollars in grants to schools for adult literacy, English language instruction and other programs, the Education Department said Friday. President Donald Trump 's administration had withheld $6 billion in funding on July 1 as part of a review to ensure spending aligned with the White House's priorities. Officials later said the department would release $1.3 billion of the money for after-school programs, days after 10 Republican senators sent a letter imploring the administration to allow frozen education money to be sent to states. The Education Department said Friday the administration had completed its review of the programs and will begin sending the money to states next week. ___ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
Telegraph
10 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Columbia University's $220m Trump settlement exposes the Left's basic hypocrisy
Columbia University has just agreed to a massive $220 million settlement with the Trump administration after a fight that centred around rampant anti-Semitism on campus. The university has also agreed to a number of policy reforms, designed to limit future attacks on Jewish students and faculty. Of the settlement, $200 million will go to the federal government and the remaining $20 million to settle employment discrimination claims. Separately, the university has suspended or expelled students who seized the university library in the name of anti-Zionism. The headlines imply that Columbia's settlement is unique, but it may not remain that way for long. Harvard's former president, Larry Summers, a former Secretary of the Treasury, has said the deal should set a template for Harvard to settle its own deepening clash with the Trump administration. The issues at the two universities are similar. Left-wing academics are already furious about the Columbia deal, saying it is pure extortion and an unprecedented intrusion into academic affairs. The 'extortion' charge focuses on the Trump administration's efforts to cut Columbia's huge flow of federal money for research and limit its permission for foreign students to enrol. The issues regarding foreign students involve virtually all universities, and are still being argued in federal court. But the Left-wing attacks are largely wrong. They are right in saying that the Trump administration's initial demands went too far in seeking to supervise teaching, appointments, and scholarly work. Those would be wholly inappropriate intrusions into areas where university faculty and administrators should have sole control, as long as they comply with federal law. For any university to approve that kind of intrusion would stifle free speech and set a terrible precedent. Fortunately, those excesses are not part of the Columbia agreement. Where the Leftist criticism is wrong is to call financial threats against universities 'unprecedented' and to say that the Trump administration is using the fight against anti-Semitism as a mask for other punitive policies. For years, under Democratic administrations, the federal government has threatened severe financial sanctions against universities that did not comply with bureaucratic regulations. Those threats went unnoticed, beyond a narrow circle who were directly involved. Why didn't you hear about those threats? For two reasons. First, universities caved in very quickly because they were desperate for federal money. Second, most university faculty and administrators actually agreed with the then-government's politicised, progressive agenda. The mainstream media agreed with it, too, so they rarely if ever reported on this bureaucratic overreach. I saw this supine agreement first hand when federal bureaucrats audited the hiring practices of a major university. The university's DEI administrator told a small, supervisory committee of faculty that the university had completed a federal audit and was in full compliance with all laws and regulations. Then the administrator announced that the federal bureaucrats were demanding 'only a few changes' – demands that went beyond any legal requirements but advanced the bureaucrats' ideological goals. Faced with those demands, every scientist involved in the decision-making favoured immediate compliance with the government's extra-legal demands. Why? Because their research depended on federal money and they couldn't risk a drawn-out conflict, which could hold up their funding. The same hidden fist lay behind the government's effort to require the inclusion of biological men in women's collegiate sports. The threat is that the government will cut off money for other grants if you don't buckle to those demands. You never heard about those threats because universities assented to them so quickly. As for anti-Semitism on campus, it is wilful blindness not to see its pervasive, malign force today. It has been particularly visible and pernicious at Ivy League universities, except for Dartmouth, and at flagship state research universities, except for those in the South. As anti-Semitism has spread across university campuses, administrators and faculty have done little to stop it. Neither did the Biden administration. Many university administrators effectively tolerated the harassment of Jewish students and did almost nothing to punish the malefactors, at least until this week at Columbia. In some cases, faculty – especially in the Humanities, some Social Sciences, and some graduate programmes (notably, schools of divinity and social work) – actively supported the disruptions. The rationale is that social justice demands anti-Zionism, and anti-Zionism quickly turns into full-scale anti-Semitism. If the settlement at Columbia and that university's belated decision to punish students who took over the library sets a precedent for other universities, that's good news and a victory for the basic Western values of religious toleration and civil discourse. The impact is likely to be felt well beyond Columbia University. Now that the Trump administration has scored a major win in this culture war, expect them to keep pressing other universities. Two final points about the Trump administration's willingness to confront Columbia and Harvard. First, taking on elite institutions is smart politics for a president who is reshaping his party around populist goals. Second, Trump is characteristically going head to head with the strongest adversaries he can find, not the weakest. He is not going after some small teaching college, which would undoubtedly cave quickly because it needs the money. He is going after Harvard, which has the deepest pockets of any university and a campus population that generally loathes him. Confronting them is a high risk strategy for Trump, but a high reward one, too. When the top Ivy League schools begin to settle with Trump, as Columbia just has, who else can resist? That question must be echoing through the ivied halls in Cambridge, New Haven, and Princeton. The answer, they will conclude, is increasingly obvious. It's time to strike a deal.
Daily Mail
10 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Trump's Coca-Cola push could revive iconic southern industry
President Trump's push to re-introduce cane sugar to Coca-Cola has raised hopes of an economic boom in Louisiana's sugarcane industry. Farmers in the southern state say they are overjoyed after the White House announced it had struck a deal with the soda giant to return cane sugar to some of its products. The move will shift Cokes away from high-fructose corn syrup and back to natural sugar, elating Louisiana growers whose produce is set to become a hot commodity. Ross Noel, a fourth-generation sugarcane farmer in Donaldsonville, LA, told KLFY that the new soda recipe will benefit far more than just the farmers growing the sugar cane. The deal from Trump to introduce cane sugar back into Coke is part of a wider push from HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to bring back natural ingredients to everyday foods. In Louisiana, farmers say that the natural ingredients trend could be a game changer for its crop-growing industry. 'There's something special about growing a crop that's real, simple, and trusted—and that is something to be proud of,' Noel told KLFY . This trend also previously saw Steak 'n Shake announce in February that it would switch from vegetable oil to beef tallow in its French fries recipe. The move to beef tallow isn't just a coincidence, as the chain actually mentioned RFK Jr. and his 'Make America Health Again' (MAHA) movement in an announcement about the change. Steak 'n Shake wrote on X, 'By March 1 ALL locations. Fries will be RFK'd!' Although Trump lauded his deal with Coca-Cola as a huge win for the MAHA movement, industry chiefs warned that consumers may end up paying more as a result . Experts warned that removing sweeteners from the drink in favor of real sugar could cost thousands of American jobs in manufacturing, and the idea has already caused chaos on the stock market. Corn Refiners Association CEO John Bode released a statement on Thursday warning that the recipe change could trigger economic mayhem and political turmoil. 'Replacing high fructose corn syrup with cane sugar would cost thousands of American food manufacturing jobs, depress farm income, and boost imports of foreign sugar, all with no nutritional benefit,' Bode said. Coca-Cola bosses said last week that they are adding a cane sugar option to their drink lineup , but did not say that they were removing their high-fructose corn syrup options. 'As part of its ongoing innovation agenda, this fall in the United States, the company plans to launch an offering made with U.S. cane sugar to expand its Trademark Coca-Cola product range,' the soda giant said. 'This addition is designed to complement the company's strong core portfolio and offer more choices across occasions and preferences.' Trump's announcement has already prompted shockwaves in the stock market, costing investors billions of dollars. Shares in Archer Daniels Midland, a leading corn processor, plunged almost six percent in pre-market trading following Trump's announcement. This reflects a potential hit to investors of around $1.5 billion.
