Latest news with #JusticeDepartment
Business Times
an hour ago
- Politics
- Business Times
Trump's court win opens a path to clear hurdles to his agenda
[WASHINGTON, DC] The US Supreme Court's ruling curbing the power of judges to block government actions on a nationwide basis has raised questions about whether dozens of orders that have halted US President Donald Trump's policies will stand. The conservative majority's ruling Friday (Jun 27) came in a fight over Trump's plan to limit automatic birthright citizenship. But it may have far-reaching consequences for the ability of US courts to issue orders that apply to anyone affected by a policy, not just the parties who filed lawsuits. Judges entered nationwide preliminary orders halting Trump administration actions in at least four dozen of the 400 lawsuits filed since he took office in January, according to a Bloomberg News analysis. Some were later put on hold on appeal. Nationwide orders currently in place include blocks on the administration's revocation of foreign students' legal status, freezes of domestic spending and foreign aid, funding cuts related to gender-affirming care and legal services for migrant children, and proof-of-citizenship rules for voting. The Supreme Court's new precedent doesn't instantly invalidate injunctions in those cases. But the Justice Department could quickly ask federal judges to revisit the scope of these and other earlier orders in light of the opinion. 'Fair game' 'Everything is fair game,' said Dan Huff, a lawyer who served in the White House counsel's office during Trump's first term. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment. Trump said at a press conference in the White House Friday that the administration will 'promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis'. Trump listed cases that they would target, including suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding and 'stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries'. The Trump administration has made it a priority to contest court orders that block policies on a nationwide, or universal, basis, although the controversy over whether those types of rulings are an appropriate use of judicial power has been brewing for years. Conservative advocates won such orders when Democratic presidents were in office as well. Noting the mounting pushback and debate, judges in dozens of other cases involving Trump's policies have limited their orders against the administration to the parties that sued or within certain geographical boundaries. Anastasia Boden, a senior attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation whose practice includes suing the federal government, said she didn't see the ruling as a total 'retreat' from judges' authority to enter universal orders going forward. Multiple paths 'It's addressing the case where a plaintiff is getting relief that applies to everyone across the country merely because judges think that it's an important issue,' she said. 'But it doesn't change the case where the plaintiff needs that relief.' Boden offered the example of a challenge to government spending, in which the only way to halt an unlawful action would be to stop payment of federal dollars across the country, not just to individual plaintiffs or in certain areas. Trump's opponents say the justices' decision still leaves them with multiple paths to sue the administration over actions they contend are unlawful and even to argue for nationwide relief. Those options include class action lawsuits, cases seeking to set aside agency actions under a US law known as the Administrative Procedure Act and even continuing to argue that nationwide relief is the only way to stop harm to individual plaintiffs, like parties did in the birthright citizenship cases. But they also acknowledged the court significantly raised the burden of what they have to prove to win those types of orders. 'This is going to make it more challenging, more complicated, potentially more expensive to seek orders that more broadly stop illegal government action,' Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, said. 'It is watering down the power of federal courts to check government misconduct.' The Supreme Court sent the birthright citizenship cases back to lower court judges to reconsider the scope of orders pausing Trump's restrictions while the legal fight on its constitutionality continues. The justices did not rule on the core question of whether the policy itself is lawful. The administration can't fully enforce the birthright policy for at least another 30 days. Democratic state attorneys general involved in the birthright litigation highlighted language in Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion that the court didn't shut off the possibility that the states could still successfully argue for a nationwide order. Speaking with reporters after the ruling, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin said he and his Democratic colleagues would 'assess' the impact on other cases. He said they already had been judicious in asking judges for nationwide relief as opposed to orders that restricted administration policies in specific states. 'The court confirmed what we've thought all along – nationwide relief should be limited, but it is available to states when appropriate,' Platkin said. BLOOMBERG
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Politics
- Straits Times
US Justice Department opens inquiry into University of California hiring practices
The University of California plans to build a university system that more closely reflects the state's racial and ethnic diversity. PHOTO: ALISHA JUCEVIC/NYTIMES WASHINGTON – The Trump administration on June 26 targeted California's education system for the second time in two days, announcing a new Justice Department investigation into whether a plan to build a university system that more closely reflects the state's racial and ethnic diversity violates civil rights laws against discrimination. The investigation was made public just 24 hours after the US Education Department declared that California was breaking federal law by allowing transgender girls to compete on female sports teams. The federal government gave the state 10 days to reverse its policies or face 'imminent enforcement action'. On June 26, the Justice Department's top civil rights attorney Harmeet Dhillon said in a letter to Michael V. Drake, president of the University of California system, that she was focused on the 'University of California 2030 Capacity Plan,' which she said might discriminate against some employees, job applicants and training programme participants. The government's news release about the inquiry said that the university plan required campuses to meet quotas for race- and sex-based employment. The 44-page plan is a three-year-old planning document aimed at expanding enrolment in the University of California system while also 'reflecting California's diversity'. It makes no specific mention of quotas, but does note that future growth of faculty and students should result in campus populations that 'better reflect and tap the talent of underrepresented populations who represent the majority of Californians'. The plan offers parameters on how to achieve that while also meeting Governor Gavin Newsom's goal of 70 per cent of working-age Californians earning post-secondary degrees or certificates by 2030. One goal includes ramping up recruitment efforts so that, by 2030, more than 40 per cent of the University of California system's doctoral students would come from University of California and California State University undergraduate campuses that are diverse enough that the federal government has designated them as 'minority-serving institutions'. Graduates from historically Black colleges and universities and tribal colleges and universities would also count toward that 40 per cent goal. 'We recognise the demand for a UC education is great,' Dr Drake and the university system's 10 chancellors wrote in the introduction of the plan. 'And we know the university needs to tap the talent of students across our state, increasing educational attainment levels and economic opportunities for Californians who have not had the same access to our university in the past.' Ms Rachel Zaentz, a spokesperson for the University of California, said the school would 'work in good faith' with Justice Department investigators. 'The University of California is committed to fair and lawful processes in all of our programmes and activities, consistent with federal and state anti-discrimination laws,' Ms Zaentz said. Since President Donald Trump took office, California has had to contend with multiple threats from his administration to withhold federal funding. The federal targeting of the state education systems also comes as the administration ramps up efforts to realign the political balance of higher education, which the administration views as hostile to conservatives. It has opened investigations into civil rights, foreign funding and other issues at Columbia University, Harvard University and other elite colleges. The Justice Department said in March that it was investigating whether several California universities were complying with the Supreme Court's 2023 decision banning the consideration of race in admissions. That investigation targeted Stanford University but also three schools in the University of California system – Berkeley, Los Angeles and Irvine. California public colleges and universities have been prohibited by state law from using affirmative action in college admissions since 1996. NYTIMES Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Yomiuri Shimbun
2 hours ago
- Politics
- Yomiuri Shimbun
University of Virginia President, Pressured over DEI, Resigns Rather Than ‘Fight Federal Government'
WASHINGTON (AP) — The president of the University of Virginia, facing heavy pressure from conservative critics and the Trump administration over the school's diversity, equity and inclusion practices, announced Friday that he was resigning rather than 'fight the federal government.' The departure of James Ryan, who had led the school since 2018, represents a dramatic escalation in the Trump administration's effort to reshape higher education. Doing it at a public university marks a new frontier in a campaign that has almost exclusively targeted Ivy League schools. It also widens the rationale behind the government's aggressive tactics, focusing on DEI rather than alleged tolerance of antisemitism. Ryan had faced conservative criticism that he failed to heed federal orders to eliminate DEI policies, and his removal was pushed for by the Justice Department as it investigated the school, according to a person who was not authorized to discuss the matter by name and spoke on condition of anonymity to The Associated Press. Ryan referenced the Trump administration pressure in a statement to the university community Friday in which he said he had submitted his resignation with a 'very heavy heart.' 'To make a long story short, I am inclined to fight for what I believe in, and I believe deeply in this University,' he said. 'But I cannot make a unilateral decision to fight the federal government in order to save my job.' Ryan had already decided that next year would be his last, he said, and remaining in his position until then would be 'knowingly and willingly sacrificing this community.' The New York Times first reported on the resignation and the Justice Department's insistence on it. In a CNN appearance Friday, the Justice Department's assistant attorney general for civil rights denied that Ryan's removal was an explicit demand but said the agency 'significantly lacked confidence' in his leadership. 'I don't have any confidence that he was going to be willing and able to preside over the dismantling of DEI,' Harmeet Dhillon said. Ryan's removal is another example of the Trump administration using 'thuggery instead of rational discourse,' said Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, which represents university presidents. 'This is a dark day for the University of Virginia, a dark day for higher education, and it promises more of the same,' Mitchell said. 'It's clear the administration is not done and will use every tool that it can make or invent to exert its will over higher education.' Virginia's Democratic senators react In a joint statement, Virginia's Democratic senators said it was outrageous that the Trump administration would demand Ryan's resignation over ''culture war' traps.' 'This is a mistake that hurts Virginia's future,' Sens. Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine said. After campaigning on a promise to end 'wokeness' in education, Trump signed a January action ordering the elimination of DEI programs nationwide. The Education Department has opened investigations into dozens of colleges, arguing that diversity initiatives discriminate against white and Asian American students. The response from schools has been scattered. Some have closed DEI offices, ended diversity scholarships and no longer require diversity statements as part of the hiring process. Some others have rebranded DEI work under other names, while some have held firm on diversity policies. The University of Virginia became a flashpoint after conservative critics accused it of simply renaming its DEI initiatives. The school's governing body voted to shutter the DEI office in March and end diversity policies in admissions, hiring, financial aid and other areas. Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin celebrated the action, declaring that 'DEI is done at the University of Virginia.' Among those drawing attention to the Charlottesville campus was America First Legal, a conservative group founded by Trump aide Stephen Miller. In a May letter to the Justice Department, the group said the university failed to dismantle DEI programs and chose to 'rename, repackage, and redeploy the same unlawful infrastructure under a lexicon of euphemisms.' The group directly took aim at Ryan, noting that he joined hundreds of other college presidents in signing a public statement condemning the 'overreach and political interference' of the Trump administration. On Friday, the group said it will continue to use every available tool to root out what it has called discriminatory systems. 'This week's developments make clear: public universities that accept federal funds do not have a license to violate the Constitution,' Megan Redshaw, an attorney at the group, said in a statement. 'They do not get to impose ideological loyalty tests, enforce race and sex-based preferences, or defy lawful executive authority.' Ryan has been leading the school since 2018 Ryan was hired to lead the University of Virginia in 2018 and previously served as the dean of Harvard University's Graduate School of Education. Earlier in his career he spent more than a decade as a law professor at the University of Virginia. A biography on Harvard's website credits Ryan with increasing the 'size, strength and diversity' of the faculty, adding that building a diverse community was a priority. Robert D. Hardie, leader of the University of Virginia's governing board, said he accepted Ryan's resignation with 'profound sadness,' adding that the university 'has forever been changed for the better as a result of Jim's exceptional leadership.' Until now, the White House had directed most of its attention at Harvard University and other elite institutions that Trump sees as bastions of liberalism. Harvard has lost more than $2.6 billion in federal research grants amid its battle with the government, which has also attempted to block the school from hosting foreign students and threatened to revoke its tax-exempt status. Harvard and its $53 billion endowment are uniquely positioned to weather the government's financial pressure. Public universities, however, are far more dependent on taxpayer money and could be more vulnerable. The University of Virginia's $10 billion endowment is among the largest for public universities, while the vast majority have far less.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Justice Department abruptly fires 3 prosecutors involved in Jan. 6 criminal cases: Sources
The Justice Department on Friday fired at least three prosecutors involved in U.S. Capitol riot criminal cases, the latest moves by the Trump administration targeting attorneys connected to the massive prosecution of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack, according to two people familiar with the matter. Those dismissed include two attorneys who worked as supervisors overseeing the Jan. 6 prosecutions in the U.S. attorney's office in Washington as well as a line attorney who prosecuted cases stemming from the Capitol attack, the people said. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss personnel matters. A letter that was received by one of the prosecutors was signed by Attorney General Pam Bondi. The letter did not provide a reason for their removal, effective immediately, citing only "Article II of the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States," according to a copy seen by The Associated Press. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Play War Thunder now for free War Thunder Play Now Undo A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment Friday evening. The terminations marked yet another escalation of norm-shattering moves that have raised alarm over the Trump administration's disregard for civil service protections for career lawyers and the erosion of the Justice Department's independence from the White House. Top leaders at the Justice Department have also fired employees who worked on the prosecutions against Trump and demoted a slew of career supervisors in what has been seen as an effort to purge the agency of lawyers seen as insufficiently loyal. Live Events Trump's sweeping pardons of the Jan. 6 rioters have led to worries about actions being taken against attorneys involved in the massive prosecution of the more than 1,500 Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol as lawmakers met to certify President Joe Biden's election victory. Trump pardoned or commuted the sentences of all of them on his first day back in the White House, releasing from prison people convicted of seditious conspiracy and violent assaults on police. During his time as interim U.S. attorney in Washington, Ed Martin in February demoted several prosecutors involved in the Jan. 6 cases, including the attorney who served as chief of the Capitol Siege Section. Others demoted include two lawyers who helped secure seditious conspiracy convictions against Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and former Proud Boys national chairman Enrique Tarrio. In January, then-acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove ordered the firings of about two dozen prosecutors who had been hired for temporary assignments to support the Jan. 6 cases, but were moved into permanent roles after Trump's presidential win in November. Bove said he would not "tolerate subversive personnel actions by the previous administration."
Al Arabiya
2 hours ago
- Politics
- Al Arabiya
Justice Department abruptly fires 3 prosecutors involved in Jan. 6 criminal cases, AP sources say
The Justice Department fired at least three prosecutors involved in US Capitol riot criminal cases on Friday–the latest moves by the Trump administration targeting attorneys connected to the massive prosecution of the January 6, 2021, attack, according to two people familiar with the matter. Those dismissed include two attorneys who worked as supervisors overseeing the January 6 prosecutions in the US attorney's office in Washington, as well as a line attorney who prosecuted cases stemming from the Capitol attack, the people said. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss personnel matters. A letter that was received by one of the prosecutors was signed by Attorney General Pam Bondi. The letter did not provide a reason for their removal, effective immediately, citing only Article II of the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States, according to a copy seen by The Associated Press. A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment Friday evening. The terminations marked yet another escalation of norm-shattering moves that have raised alarm over the Trump administration's disregard for civil service protections for career lawyers and the erosion of the Justice Department's independence from the White House. Top leaders at the Justice Department have also fired employees who worked on the prosecutions against Trump and demoted a slew of career supervisors in what has been seen as an effort to purge the agency of lawyers seen as insufficiently loyal. Trump's sweeping pardons of the January 6 rioters have led to worries about actions being taken against attorneys involved in the massive prosecution of the more than 1,500 Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol as lawmakers met to certify President Joe Biden's election victory. Trump pardoned or commuted the sentences of all of them on his first day back in the White House, releasing from prison people convicted of seditious conspiracy and violent assaults on police. During his time as interim US attorney in Washington, Ed Martin in February demoted several prosecutors involved in the January 6 cases, including the attorney who served as chief of the Capitol Siege Section. Others demoted include two lawyers who helped secure seditious conspiracy convictions against Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and former Proud Boys national chairman Enrique Tarrio. In January, then-acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove ordered the firings of about two dozen prosecutors who had been hired for temporary assignments to support the January 6 cases but were moved into permanent roles after Trump's presidential win in November. Bove said he would not tolerate subversive personnel actions by the previous administration.
