Latest news with #Democratic-governed
Time of India
5 days ago
- Health
- Time of India
Trump administration asks US Supreme Court to allow NIH diversity-related cuts
New York: Donald Trump's administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday to allow the government to proceed with sweeping cuts to National Institutes of Health grants as part of the Republican president's crackdown on diversity initiatives. The Justice Department asked the justices to lift Boston-based U.S. District Judge William Young's June ruling that halted the plan as a violation of federal law and required the government to reinstate access to the grant funds. The judge acted in a legal challenge by researchers and 16 U.S. states, led by Democratic-governed Massachusetts. The NIH is the world's largest funder of biomedical research. The cuts are part of Trump's wide-ranging actions to reshape the U.S. government, slash federal spending and end government support for diversity, equity and inclusion programs and transgender healthcare. The administration repeatedly has sought the Supreme Court's intervention to allow implementation of Trump policies impeded by lower courts. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has sided with the administration in almost every case that it has been called upon to review since Trump returned to the presidency in January. In June, dozens of scientists, researchers and other NIH employees signed an open letter criticizing the agency's actions and spending cuts under Trump that they said politicize research and "harm the health of Americans and people across the globe." Young's ruling came in two lawsuits challenging the cuts. One was filed by the American Public Health Association, individual researchers and other plaintiffs who called the cuts an "ongoing ideological purge" of projects with a purported connection to gender identity, DEI "or other vague, now-forbidden language." The other was filed by the states, most of them Democratic-led. Young, an appointee of Republican former President Ronald Reagan, invalidated the grant terminations in June. The judge wrote that every new administration is entitled to make policy changes but that these must be reasonable and reasonably explained. Instead, according to the judge, the steps taken by Trump administration officials were "breathtakingly arbitrary and capricious," violating a federal law governing the actions of agencies. Young criticized administration officials for not offering any definition of DEI while disparaging studies they deemed low-value and unscientific that the officials claimed were used to unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race and other protected characteristics. "There is not a shred of evidence supporting any of these statements in the record," Young wrote. Many U.S. conservatives contend that DEI policies discriminate against white people. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on July 18 denied the administration's request to put Young's decision on hold. The administration has argued that the litigation should have been brought in a different judicial body, the Washington-based Court of Federal Claims, which specializes in money damages claims against the U.S. government. That reasoning was also the basis for the Supreme Court's decision in April that let Trump's administration proceed with millions of dollars of cuts to teacher training grants also targeted under the DEI crackdown.
Reuters
6 days ago
- Health
- Reuters
Trump administration asks US Supreme Court to allow NIH diversity-related cuts
July 24 (Reuters) - Donald Trump's administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday to allow the government to proceed with sweeping cuts to National Institutes of Health grants as part of the Republican president's crackdown on diversity initiatives. The Justice Department asked the justices to lift Boston-based U.S. District Judge William Young's June ruling that halted the plan as a violation of federal law and required the government to reinstate access to the grant funds. The judge acted in a legal challenge by researchers and 16 U.S. states, led by Democratic-governed Massachusetts. The NIH is the world's largest funder of biomedical research. The cuts are part of Trump's wide-ranging actions to reshape the U.S. government, slash federal spending and end government support for diversity, equity and inclusion programs and transgender healthcare. The administration repeatedly has sought the Supreme Court's intervention to allow implementation of Trump policies impeded by lower courts. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has sided with the administration in almost every case that it has been called upon to review since Trump returned to the presidency in January. In June, dozens of scientists, researchers and other NIH employees signed an open letter criticizing the agency's actions and spending cuts under Trump that they said politicize research and "harm the health of Americans and people across the globe." Young's ruling came in two lawsuits challenging the cuts. One was filed by the American Public Health Association, individual researchers and other plaintiffs who called the cuts an "ongoing ideological purge" of projects with a purported connection to gender identity, DEI "or other vague, now-forbidden language." The other was filed by the states, most of them Democratic-led. Young, an appointee of Republican former President Ronald Reagan, invalidated the grant terminations in June. The judge wrote that every new administration is entitled to make policy changes but that these must be reasonable and reasonably explained. Instead, according to the judge, the steps taken by Trump administration officials were "breathtakingly arbitrary and capricious," violating a federal law governing the actions of agencies. Young criticized administration officials for not offering any definition of DEI while disparaging studies they deemed low-value and unscientific that the officials claimed were used to unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race and other protected characteristics. "There is not a shred of evidence supporting any of these statements in the record," Young wrote. Many U.S. conservatives contend that DEI policies discriminate against white people. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on July 18 denied the administration's request to put Young's decision on hold. The administration has argued that the litigation should have been brought in a different judicial body, the Washington-based Court of Federal Claims, which specializes in money damages claims against the U.S. government. That reasoning was also the basis for the Supreme Court's decision in April that let Trump's administration proceed with millions of dollars of cuts to teacher training grants also targeted under the DEI crackdown.
Yahoo
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court rebuffs challenge to Washington, DC's high-capacity gun magazine ban
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Friday to hear a challenge to the legality of a restriction imposed by Washington, D.C., on large-capacity ammunition magazines in a case that gives the justices a chance to further expand gun rights. The justices turned away an appeal by four men who challenged the law of a lower court's ruling that upheld the Democratic-governed city's ban on virtually all ammunition-feeding devices holding more than 10 rounds. The lower court rejected arguments that the measure violates the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms."
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court poised to revive challenge to California emissions standards
By Andrew Chung WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared sympathetic on Wednesday to a bid by fuel producers to challenge California's standards for vehicle emissions and electric cars under a federal air pollution law in a case involving the Democratic-governed state's power to fight greenhouse gases. The justices heard arguments in an appeal by a Valero Energy subsidiary and fuel industry groups of a lower court's ruling that they lacked the required legal standing to challenge a 2022 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency decision to let California set its own regulations, separate from those of the federal government. Questioned posed by conservative and liberal justices alike indicated that the court would allow fuel producers to pursue the case. It remained uncertain whether the court would announce a rule suggested by the challengers that would make it easier for a wider array of groups and businesses to challenge any government regulation that may impact their bottom line. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. The dispute centers on an exception granted to California during Democratic former President Joe Biden's administration to national vehicle emission standards set by the agency under the landmark Clean Air Act anti-pollution law. Though states and municipalities are generally preempted from enacting their own limits, Congress allowed the EPA to waive the preemption rule to let California set certain regulations that are stricter than federal standards. Valero's Diamond Alternative Energy and related groups challenged the reinstatement of California's waiver, arguing that the decision exceeded the EPA's power under the Clean Air Act and inflicted harm on their bottom line by lowering demand for liquid fuels. "The government has tilted the playing field and foreclosed us from being able to freely sell our product," Jeffrey Wall, a lawyer for the challengers, told the justices. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan told Wall that the government's tilt of the market "seems like an easy thing to show" in this case. A lawyer for Republican President Donald Trump's administration, Edwin Kneedler, agreed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the challengers had not shown the evidence that would entitle them to sue. But Kagan told Kneedler that both the EPA and California had made declarations that the waiver would reduce gasoline-related emissions, seeming to validate the concerns of the challengers. Numerous questions centered on whether the assertions by the challengers about how the regulation would influence carmakers and thus affect fuel producers amounted to a "common sense inference" that would permit them to sue. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that in relying on common sense, "It's not that high a burden." California, the most-populous U.S. state, has received more than 75 waivers since 1967, requiring increasingly higher emissions performance and EV sales. The EPA's 2022 action reinstated a waiver for California to set its own tailpipe emissions limits and zero-emission vehicle mandate through 2025, reversing a 2019 decision made during Trump's first administration rescinding the waiver. Trump's administration has told the court that it is reassessing the 2022 reinstatement decision, a process that may again lead to the withdrawal of the waiver. The D.C. Circuit threw out the lawsuits in 2024, finding that Valero and the states lacked the necessary standing to bring their claims because there was no evidence that a ruling in their favor might affect the decisions of auto manufacturers in a way that would result in fewer electric and more combustion vehicles to be sold. The Supreme Court is expected to rule by the end of June. The court has taken a skeptical view toward expansive authority for federal regulatory agencies and has restricted the powers of the EPA in some important rulings in recent years. In 2024, the court blocked the EPA's "Good Neighbor" rule aimed at reducing ozone emissions that may worsen air pollution in neighboring states. In 2023, the court hobbled the EPA's power to protect wetlands and fight water pollution. In 2022, it imposed limits on the agency's authority under the Clean Air Act to reduce coal- and gas-fired power plant carbon emissions.
Reuters
23-04-2025
- Automotive
- Reuters
US Supreme Court poised to revive challenge to California emissions standards
WASHINGTON, April 23 (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared sympathetic on Wednesday to a bid by fuel producers to challenge California's standards for vehicle emissions and electric cars under a federal air pollution law in a case involving the Democratic-governed state's power to fight greenhouse gases. The justices heard arguments in an appeal by a Valero Energy (VLO.N), opens new tab subsidiary and fuel industry groups of a lower court's ruling that they lacked the required legal standing to challenge a 2022 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency decision to let California set its own regulations, separate from those of the federal government. Questioned posed by conservative and liberal justices alike indicated that the court would allow fuel producers to pursue the case. It remained uncertain whether the court would announce a rule suggested by the challengers that would make it easier for a wider array of groups and businesses to challenge any government regulation that may impact their bottom line. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. The dispute centers on an exception granted to California during Democratic former President Joe Biden 's administration to national vehicle emission standards set by the agency under the landmark Clean Air Act anti-pollution law. Though states and municipalities are generally preempted from enacting their own limits, Congress allowed the EPA to waive the preemption rule to let California set certain regulations that are stricter than federal standards. Valero's Diamond Alternative Energy and related groups challenged the reinstatement of California's waiver, arguing that the decision exceeded the EPA's power under the Clean Air Act and inflicted harm on their bottom line by lowering demand for liquid fuels. "The government has tilted the playing field and foreclosed us from being able to freely sell our product," Jeffrey Wall, a lawyer for the challengers, told the justices. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan told Wall that the government's tilt of the market "seems like an easy thing to show" in this case. A lawyer for Republican President Donald Trump 's administration, Edwin Kneedler, agreed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the challengers had not shown the evidence that would entitle them to sue. But Kagan told Kneedler that both the EPA and California had made declarations that the waiver would reduce gasoline-related emissions, seeming to validate the concerns of the challengers. Numerous questions centered on whether the assertions by the challengers about how the regulation would influence carmakers and thus affect fuel producers amounted to a "common sense inference" that would permit them to sue. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that in relying on common sense, "It's not that high a burden." California, the most-populous U.S. state, has received more than 75 waivers since 1967, requiring increasingly higher emissions performance and EV sales. The EPA's 2022 action reinstated a waiver for California to set its own tailpipe emissions limits and zero-emission vehicle mandate through 2025, reversing a 2019 decision made during Trump's first administration rescinding the waiver. Trump's administration has told the court that it is reassessing the 2022 reinstatement decision, a process that may again lead to the withdrawal of the waiver. The D.C. Circuit threw out the lawsuits in 2024, finding that Valero and the states lacked the necessary standing to bring their claims because there was no evidence that a ruling in their favor might affect the decisions of auto manufacturers in a way that would result in fewer electric and more combustion vehicles to be sold. The Supreme Court is expected to rule by the end of June. The court has taken a skeptical view toward expansive authority for federal regulatory agencies and has restricted the powers of the EPA in some important rulings in recent years. In 2024, the court blocked the EPA's " Good Neighbor" rule aimed at reducing ozone emissions that may worsen air pollution in neighboring states. In 2023, the court hobbled the EPA's power to protect wetlands and fight water pollution. In 2022, it imposed limits on the agency's authority under the Clean Air Act to reduce coal- and gas-fired power plant carbon emissions.
