Tennessee sues US Education Department over grants for Hispanic-serving colleges
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti and Students for Fair Admissions, a group founded by affirmative action opponent Edward Blum, argued in a lawsuit, opens new tab filed in federal court in Knoxville that Congress unconstitutionally exceeded its authority by creating a program that discriminates on the basis of race.
"A federal grant system that openly discriminates against students based on ethnicity isn't just wrong and un-American—it's unconstitutional,' Skrmetti said in a statement.
The Education Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The group's arguments would appear to align with the efforts by Republican President Donald Trump's administration to eliminate programs it views as furthering the objectives of diversity, equity and inclusion, which the White House calls discriminatory.
The lawsuit takes aim at the Hispanic-Serving Institutions Program, which Congress created as part of Titles III and V of the Higher Education Act with the goal of supporting colleges and universities that serve a significant percentage of Hispanic students.
In the 2024 fiscal year, Congress appropriated at least $228.9 million for one sub-program, the Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions Program, the complaint noted.
The lawsuit said colleges awarded grants can use the millions of dollars they receive to fund new lab equipment and STEM tutoring for low-income students, among other purposes.
But the lawsuit said that while the state of Tennessee operates many colleges and universities that serve Hispanic students, its schools are ineligible for funding "because they don't have the right mix of ethnicities on campus."
The lawsuit argues that the program as currently constituted was not a valid exercise of Congress' spending power and that its discriminatory criteria runs afoul of the equal-protection principle included in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The lawsuit cites the 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court's landmark 2023 decision rejecting race-conscious policies long used by American colleges and universities to increase the number of Black, Hispanic and other minority students on American campuses in cases involving Harvard University and the University of North Carolina.
Those cases were filed by Students for Fair Admissions, a non-profit founded by Blum, who has pursued a series of cases since then challenging programs designed to bolster racial diversity in government and Corporate America.
The case is State of Tennessee v. U.S. Department of Education, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, No. 3:25-cv-270.
For the plaintiffs: Thomas McCarthy and Cameron Norris of Consovoy McCarthy; Adam Mortara of Lawfair; and Aaron Bernard of the Tennessee Office of the Attorney General
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
a few seconds ago
- The Independent
Starmer must take a strong line with Trump to relieve the suffering in Gaza
The phrase 'walking a diplomatic tightrope' is overused by the media, but it is an accurate description of Sir Keir Starmer's task when he meets Donald Trump on Monday for talks at the US president's Turnberry golf course in Scotland. According to Downing Street sources, the prime minister will discuss what more can be done to secure a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, to 'bring an end to the unspeakable suffering and starvation in Gaza', and to hasten the release of the remaining Israeli hostages. Sir Keir is under growing pressure from Labour backbenchers, and several members of his cabinet, to go further by joining France's Emmanuel Macron in formally recognising Palestinian statehood. But if the prime minister did so, it would weaken his hand with Mr Trump, the only foreign leader with meaningful influence over Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister. So Gaza poses a big test for Sir Keir's quietly effective strategy of not challenging or criticising the US president in public. We have to take it on trust that he will argue strongly behind closed doors for the US to restart the peace talks it led in Qatar before it pulled out, blaming Hamas for the lack of progress. Indeed, President Trump should revive plans for a 60-day ceasefire, the release of some hostages, and – crucially – an increase in aid supplies, which are desperately needed to prevent more deaths from starvation. Such an approach by Sir Keir will not be enough for the 221 MPs, including a third of Labour backbenchers, who have signed a letter calling for the immediate recognition of Palestine. Or, indeed, for much of the British public. It is not surprising, given the harrowing pictures of emaciated children in TV news bulletins, that opinion in the UK is turning against Israel, which rightly enjoyed the goodwill of many after the horrific 7 October attacks. According to More in Common, 29 per cent of people now sympathise more with the Palestinians – up by 11 percentage points since November 2023 – while 27 per cent sympathise with neither side, 16 per cent with both sides equally, and 15 per cent with Israel. Some 48 per cent believe Israel's response to the conflict has been disproportionate, and only 28 per cent think it proportionate. Amid mounting outrage, Israel has announced a limited 'tactical pause' in its military operation in three areas of Gaza to allow in more humanitarian relief. The easing of restrictions is welcome, if long overdue, but it must be more than a cynical temporary move. It is no substitute for a ceasefire leading to negotiations on a long-term peace settlement. Nor will the airdrops planned by the UK and Jordan be more than a sticking plaster; they are ineffective compared with relief delivered by lorries, and sometimes even dangerous. Sir Keir's reluctance to recognise Palestine may prove to have been a holding line. If countries such as Germany, Canada and Australia change their minds and back France, he may shift. The SNP plans to force a vote on the issue when the Commons returns from its summer recess in September, which would expose Labour divisions. That month, the Labour conference will be problematic for its leader if he doesn't change tack, while the UN general assembly will discuss France's move. Yet for now, The Independent believes the prime minister is right to maximise his influence with President Trump, and to keep the recognition of Palestine as a card to play in talks on a permanent peace that must include a two-state solution to the Israel-Hamas conflict. Recognising Palestine now would not in itself change the terrible conditions on the ground in Gaza, as Bob Geldof, the Live Aid organiser, told Sky News on Sunday. He said it should have been done 'ages ago', but that the demands of Labour MPs amount to a distraction that 'is not going to make any material difference'. Sir Keir's quiet diplomacy is a better response to the crisis in Gaza than the tone-deafness of Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader. Interviewed on Sky, she backed calls for a ceasefire but said: 'What I see when I see Israel is a country that's trying to defend itself.' She declared that the pictures of starving children had not affected her support for Israel, insisting that it is allowing in relief supplies – a view that is hotly disputed by the United Nations and aid agencies. So far, Sir Keir has confounded critics who warned that he would not be able to have it both ways and maintain good relations with the US and the EU. He has secured trade deals with both. The emergency in Gaza now poses a big test for the prime minister's strong record on foreign affairs in the past year, which regrettably has not been matched on the domestic front. Sir Keir's understandable desire to hug Mr Trump close should not lead him to pull his punches over the gruesome tragedy unfolding in Gaza.
Daily Mail
a minute ago
- Daily Mail
Jay Leno blasts late-night comedy hosts over divisive content as Colbert gets the boot from CBS
Jay Leno is taking aim at modern late-night comedy shows, claiming the hosts are isolating half their viewers in an interview released just days after Stephen Colbert got the boot from CBS. The former Tonight Show host, 75, reflected on the shift in late-night culture during a sit-down interview with Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation president David Trulio. The candid conversation was taped two weeks ago but was recently shared and quickly circulated online. They spoke openly about comedy, politics and what's changed in the late-night world. Trulio began by mentioning to Leno that his jokes had a reputation of being equally balanced in his time on air. 'I read that there was an analysis done of your work on 'The Tonight Show' for the 22 years and that your jokes were roughly equally balanced between going after Republicans and taking aim at Democrats. Did you have a strategy?' Trulio asked. 'I got hate letters saying, 'You and your Republican friends,' and another saying, 'I hope you and your Democratic buddies are happy' - over the same joke,' Leno said. 'That's how you get a whole audience. Now you have to be content with half the audience, because you have to give your opinion.' 'Rodney Dangerfield and I were friends,' Continued Leno. 'I knew Rodney 40 years and I have no idea if he was a Democrat or Republican. We never discussed politics, we just discussed jokes.' 'I like to think that people come to a comedy show to get away from the pressures of life. I love political humor - don't get me wrong. But people wind up cozying too much to one side or the other.' 'Funny is funny,' Leno said. 'It's funny when someone who's not….when you make fun of their side and they laugh at it, you know, that's kind of what I do.' 'I just find getting out - I don't think anybody wants to hear a lecture,' he continued. 'When I was with Rodney, it was always in the economy of words - get to the joke as quickly as possible.' He criticized comedians who inject their political opinions into every monologue and said he preferred making the whole audience laugh rather than pushing an agenda. 'I don't think anybody wants to hear a lecture … Why shoot for just half an audience? Why not try to get the whole? I like to bring people into the big picture,' he said. 'I don't understand why you would alienate one particular group, you know, or just don't do it at all. I'm not saying you have to throw your support or whatever, but just do what's funny.' His comments come in the wake of Colbert's dramatic departure from The Late Show. A media frenzy engulfed The Late Show after Colbert publicly slammed the CBS show's parent corporation, Paramount Global, for settling a defamation lawsuit with Trump for $16 million, calling it a 'big, fat, bribe,' in his opening monologue. Just days after the searing call-out, Colbert told his studio audience that the network was ending The Late Show in May 2026. Speculation has loomed over why the show was canceled, with A-listers and fellow talk-show hosts coming to the comedian's defense. Colbert won an Emmy for his work on The Colbert Report, a satirical show that ran on Comedy Central from 2005 to 2014. After he replaced David Letterman on The Late Show, the program was nominated for the most Outstanding Talk Series at the Emmys from 2017 to 2022. Meanwhile, other late-night legends have rallied behind Colbert in the wake of his show's cancellation. Jimmy Fallon said: 'I don't like it. I don't like what's going on one bit. These are crazy times,' Fallon said, referencing how 'everybody [was] talking about' the decision. 'And many people are now threatening to boycott the network', he said, setting up another punchline. 'Yeah - CBS could lose millions of viewers, plus tens of hundreds watching on Paramount+.' David Letterman also backed his successor and suggested CBS canceled The Late Show because he was 'always shooting his mouth off' about Donald Trump. The 78-year-old late-night legend created The Late Show in 1993 after NBC denied him the chance to succeed Johnny Carson on The Tonight Show. In his first comment on the show's cancellation, Letterman noted that his show was more about political satire than his version of The Late Show but was still complimentary, calling the decision by CBS 'pure cowardice.' 'I think one day, if not today, the people at CBS who have manipulated and handled this, they're going to be embarrassed, because this is gutless,' he told former Late Show producers Barbara Gaines and Mary Barclay.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Democrat frames Epstein files as winning issue while Republican admits White House 'misstep'
The Trump Administration's refusal to release any more files about Jeffery Epstein has dominated the news cycle in recent weeks, and both the President's political allies and adversaries are growing weary. Progressive Democrat Ro Khanna appeared on Meet The Press Sunday, when he told host Kristen Welker that he considered the issue of the Epstein filed a winning one for his party. 'This is about trust in government. When John F. Kennedy was president, trust in government was 60%. Today it's in the teens. Speaker Johnson and I came to Congress together. He was on the reform side too. He wanted to make government work,' Khanna noted. 'This is a perfect opportunity for him to say, "Look, the past is the past." Okay, I didn't love that he shut down government. Maybe on your show today he'll commit that when we come back, let's have a vote. Remind him of what were like, the conversations we had in our freshman class. This is about being a reform agent of transparency,' Khanna continued, doing his best to put additional pressure on the Republican Speaker. Voters as well are not happy with Trump's handing of the files, with only 16% of respondents to a recent Emerson College poll saying that they approve 'of the Trump administration's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files.' Emerson College Polling director Spencer Kimball noted Thursday that the Epstein files issue was the one Trump fared the worst on. Khanna and libertarian-minded Republican Thomas Massie of Kentucky teamed up earlier this month to introduce the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which would compel Attorney General Pam Bondi to publicly release all unclassified materials relating to Jeffery Epstein. The duo's resolution is receiving the the backing of a diverse set of members, including New York socialist darling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Michigan 'Squad' member Rashida Tlaib, as well as Boebert of Colorado, Nancy Mace of South Carolina, and Greene of Georgia. Khanna noted during a media appearance last week that his resolution had the backing of all 212 of his Democratic colleagues in the House. Even if only the 10 GOP co-sponsors of the resolution were to support it, it would easily pass the House as just a simple majority is need, which is 218 votes out of 435. Speaker Mike Johnson had choice words for the uncanny duo's push to release the files during his own Meet The Press appearance Sunday. 'The Massie and the Khanna discharge petition does not have adequate protections. For example, in the way that it was drafted, they cite that they don't want child abuse, sex abuse information uncovered, but they cite the wrong provision of the Federal Code, and so it makes it unworkable,' Johnson told Welker. 'It requires the DOJ to release grand jury testimony. They are prohibited by law from doing so. So it is not the right approach. There is another approach out there. The House Republicans on the Rules Committee have a resolution that is well drafted, that is thoughtfully drafted by lawyers, that would make this workable. That's the approach, we have to protect the innocent. We'll do it at all cost,' Johnson added. Yet, even members of the President's own political party are calling the Administration's handling of the files a 'political mistake' and 'misstep.' Portrait of American financier Jeffrey Epstein (left) and real estate developer Donald Trump as they pose together at the Mar-a-Lago estate, Palm Beach, Florida, 1997 Eric Burlison, a Missouri Republican, told CNN's Manu Raju Sunday that part of the issue is 'that there were false expectations that are created, and that's a political mistake.' 'I think that saying that you're going to be able to deliver when you haven't even looked at all of the files, what's available, was probably a misstep,' Burlison told Raju.
