Latest news with #Obama-appointed
New York Post
12 hours ago
- Politics
- New York Post
Washington Post editorial slams Obama judge for blocking ‘fair and square' GOP defunding of Planned Parenthood
Advertisement The Washington Post editorial board slammed Obama-appointed U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani's decision to block an 'act of Congress' by issuing a preliminary injunction to revoke Congress's decision to divert Medicaid funds away from abortion providers like Planned Parenthood. The Post editorial argued on Tuesday that, while some of the Trump administration's attempts to strip federal funding from disfavored programs rightly face scrutiny for bypassing Congress, the Republican effort to cut Medicaid funding for abortion care was passed 'fair and square' through the legislative process. 'Allocating public money is Congress's core competency. Yet U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani not only countermanded Congress's spending choice in a preliminary injunction, she also refused to stay her ruling pending appeal,' the editorial board explained, adding, 'This is the kind of lower court activism that gives the Trump administration fodder for its attacks on judges.' 4 The Post argued that the Republican effort to cut Medicaid funding for abortion care was passed 'fair and square' through the legislative process. Fox News Advertisement The tax and spending bill that was signed into law on July 4 contains a provision which states that, as of October 1, certain tax-exempt organizations that perform abortions can no longer receive reimbursements from Medicaid. Planned Parenthood promptly sued the federal government after the bill became law, as they stood to lose a sizable chunk of their federal funding. Talwani agreed with Planned Parenthood and ruled that the provision is an unconstitutional 'bill of attainder,' which imposes legislative punishment on a specific group without judicial trial, and noted that the concept includes other forms of 'legislative punishment.' 4 Planned Parenthood promptly sued the federal government after the bill became law, as they stood to lose a sizable chunk of their federal funding. AP Advertisement 'Many Republican members of Congress who voted for this reconciliation bill no doubt dislike abortion and want to defund Planned Parenthood because it is the country's leading abortion provider. That doesn't make the Medicaid restrictions illegitimate,' The Post argued. 'The budget process is inherently political, and Congress's tax-and-spending decisions almost always help some groups and hurt others.' According to the Post, Talwani 'strained' to label Congress's exercise of its spending discretion unconstitutional, noting that she claimed the Medicaid provision 'requires Planned Parenthood Members to stop providing elective abortions,' and it would prevent them 'from engaging in a core part of their operation.' 4 The Washington Post editorial board slammed Obama-appointed U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani's (shown above) decision to block an 'act of Congress' United States Courts 'But Congress has no obligation to subsidize any group's operation,' the outlet rebutted. 'If forward-looking budgetary measures can be scrutinized as bills of attainder, Congress's fiscal function will be incapacitated.' Advertisement The Post contended that Talwani's decision is likely to be reversed on appeal, but her decision 'is a reminder that the judiciary, as well as the executive, can overreach at Congress's expense and damage the separation of powers.' 4 The Post argued: 'The budget process is inherently political, and Congress's tax-and-spending decisions almost always help some groups and hurt others.' AP In closing, the editorial board made the case that, regardless of whether one personally agrees with the policy, Congress' decision to divert Medicaid funding away from abortion services went through the proper constitutional process and deserves more 'judicial deference' than an executive order. 'By curbing funding for abortion providers, social conservatives have advanced one of their longtime legislative priorities, fair and square. To protect that funding in the future, liberals will need to make the case to voters in 2026 and 2028,' The Post concluded. 'Judicial fiat cannot substitute for democratic legitimacy.'
New York Post
3 days ago
- Health
- New York Post
Obama-appointed judge orders Trump to continue funding Planned Parenthood
An Obama-appointed federal judge Monday blocked the Trump administration from cutting off Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood, which was a key element of his One Big Beautiful Bill Act. US District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston issued a preliminary injunction to stop the feds from halting funds to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America for even non-abortion services such as birth control, citing the First Amendment. Federal funding for abortion is already prohibited under the Hyde Amendment. Advertisement 3 Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the country. REUTERS 'Restricting Members' ability to provide healthcare services threatens an increase in unintended pregnancies and attendant complications because of reduced access to effective contraceptives, and an increase in undiagnosed and untreated STIs [sexually transmitted infections],' she wrote in a 58-page opinion. 'Legislative context corroborates Plaintiffs' contention that Congress drafted these criteria with the intent to punish Planned Parenthood Federation and its Members,' the judge said. Advertisement Nestled in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which passed Congress and was signed into law by President Trump earlier this month, was a provision to cut off Medicaid funding for groups 'primarily engaged in family planning services, reproductive health, and related medical care' that perform abortions. 3 The abortion provider is still litigating its challenge against the provision in the GOP megalaw to cut it off from Medicaid. Getty Images The GOP megalaw enacts a one-year ban on Medicaid funding to health-care nonprofits that provide abortions and garnered over $800,000 in federal funding back in 2023. Medicaid is a program that provides government-funded health insurance to an estimated 70 million low-income Americans. Advertisement While federal funding for abortion is already prohibited, for decades, healthcare providers that perform abortions, such as Planned Parenthood clinics, have received reimbursements from programs such as Medicaid for non-abortion services. Last week, Talwani issued a more tailored preliminary injunction blocking the administration from enforcing the provision against 10 Planned Parenthood clinics that supposedly don't perform abortions. 3 President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law earlier this month. Getty Images On Monday, she went a step further by expanding that block to Planned Parenthood clinics across the country, concluding that plaintiffs showed a 'substantial likelihood' that they will succeed in proving that the provision to cut off funding is unconstitutional. Advertisement 'In ordering relief, the court is not enjoining the federal government from regulating abortion and is not directing the federal government to fund elective abortions or any healthcare service not otherwise eligible for Medicaid coverage,' the judge said. 'The court's order does not require the federal government to spend money not already appropriated for Medicaid or any other funds.' Planned Parenthood is not named in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act provision, but the organization has argued that it was targeted by Republicans and cited their public remarks to that effect. The prominent abortion provider argued that the megalaw essentially amounts to retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, pointing to the 10 clinics that don't perform the controversial procedure. 'Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in establishing that [the law] unconstitutionally conditions Medicaid reimbursements on these Members foregoing their First Amendment right of association,' Talwani wrote.
USA Today
3 days ago
- Politics
- USA Today
What to know about First Amendment issues in Trump's lawsuit against Wall Street Journal
Trump filed the lawsuit on July 18, accusing WSJ of defamation. President Donald Trump's lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal, filed in South Florida, raises potential First Amendment concerns regarding freedom of the press, speech and accountability. The Wall Street Journal reported July 17 about a leather-bound birthday book given to the late multi-millionaire investor and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in 2003 for his 50th birthday, with letters from friends and family — and one of them bearing Trump's signature. The president's attorney in Miami promptly filed a federal lawsuit against the Journal, its publisher, its parent company, two executives and the two reporters who wrote the story. The suit is significant because it presents challenges to multiple First Amendment issues: defamation, freedom of press, freedom of speech and state laws that are meant to protect speech from costly lawsuits. The federal filing comes at a time of nationwide clamor to pressure the Trump administration to release documents related to Epstein's case, where online conspiracy theorists and even Democratic and Republican members of Congress alike have encouraged releasing more information. Here's what to know about the suit at a time when Trump has been scrutinized nationally for deflecting focus away from the Epstein matter: WSJ may SLAPP Trump's $10 billion lawsuit away Florida is one of 38 states with anti-SLAPP laws in place, which are meant to protect free speech. SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, a type of lawsuit intended to intimidate, silence, or punish critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense, even if the case lacks merit. SLAPPs are often used against individuals or organizations who speak out on matters of public interest, such as journalists, activists, or whistleblowers. Traditionally, whether anti-SLAPP state laws apply in federal court is a topic of controversy, but attorneys for the Journal could argue for Trump to pay its attorney fees using Florida's anti-SLAPP provision. But the complaint against the Journal, in which Trump is requesting strikingly high damages of $10 billion, would fall under Florida's anti-SLAPP law, said David Keating, the president of the Institute for Free Speech. A representative of the Wall Street Journal declined comment on the case, including questions of whether the newspaper would use the state anti-SLAPP law. A request for comment to Trump's attorney who filed the lawsuit, Alejandro Brito, is pending. The nitty-gritty in this Florida case This case was filed in the U.S. Southern District of Florida court by Trump's attorney in Miami, Alejandro Brito. He also filed a 2023 lawsuit against Trump's then-attorney Michael Cohen for $500 million, saying Cohen violated attorney-client relationship. Trump dropped the lawsuit months later. Obama-appointed U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles will be presiding over Trump's lawsuit against the Journal. Gayles, who was the first openly gay Black man appointed as a federal judge, also oversaw Trump's case against Cohen. A potentially short-lived lawsuit? The Journal's case could have a similar fate to Cohen's – and end promptly in Trump's team potentially filing for dismissal. Cases involving the First Amendment have more complexity in proving whether defamation or libel are at play, said Lyrissa Lidsky, a First Amendment law professor at the University of Florida. Lidsky said Trump's litigious background demonstrates a history of using suits strategically against his critics. She said the Journal's main battle is demonstrating the steps reporters took in verifying the reliability of the sources they used in the story. "He knows that the filing of a defamation lawsuit could be a symbolic way to contest the truth that has been written about you, even if you never end up making it to trial," Lidsky said. The First Amendment protects the press to write and publish without fear of government retaliation, but defamation is not protected by the First Amendment. Defamation is the act of making a false statement about someone that harms their reputation. A person who claims defamation usually asks for financial damages from the person who defamed them. Public officials have a higher bar in libel cases under the U.S. Supreme Court's New York Times v. Sullivan case. They have to prove "actual malice," meaning a news organization knew the information was false and acted with reckless disregard for the truth. In many cases, journalists and media outlets are accused of defamation when it comes to news on high-profile court cases. Trump previously sued outlets like CNN, New York Times and the Washington Post for defamation over the past five years – and most of these resulted in dismissal. This reporting content is supported by a partnership with Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. USA Today Network-Florida First Amendment reporter Stephany Matat is based in Tallahassee, Fla. She can be reached at SMatat@ On X: @stephanymatat.
New York Post
6 days ago
- Politics
- New York Post
Harvard ‘wants to settle' after Columbia's $200M fine over civil-rights probe, Trump says
WASHINGTON — Harvard University 'wants to settle' after seeing Columbia get all of its grant funding back in exchange for a $200 million fine to resolve civil-rights violations, President Trump said Friday. 'Harvard wants to settle, but I think Columbia handled it better,' Trump told reporters on the White House's South Lawn before departing for a trip to Turnberry, Scotland. 'They have a very good, Obama-appointed judge,' he said of the jurist overseeing Harvard's case. 'And so they'll get a little kick out of that. But ultimately, we win that case. And the bottom line is we're not going to give any more money to Harvard.' Trump stripped the Cambridge, Mass., school of $2.6 billion in federal funding earlier this year because he said it discriminated against Jewish faculty and students by not protecting them enough from hate, and also because the Ivy League promoted DEI. 6 President Trump claims Friday that Harvard University 'wants to settle' its court case involving his administration stripping funding over discrimination issues. Anna Wilding/ Harvard has shown no signs of relenting in its lawsuit against the administration, but the president and Education Secretary Linda McMahon have both expressed confidence in a future settlement. 'We're hoping that Harvard will come to the table,' McMahon told NewsNation's 'Morning in America' on Thursday. 'We're already seeing other universities that are taking these measures before investigation or before our coming in to talk to them.' Former Harvard President Larry Summers had posted on X that the terms of Columbia's recent agreement, which allowed for the return of $400 million in grants and other federal funding, were 'an excellent template' for his alma mater. In particular, Summers noted the deal's commitments to academic freedom and reforms to address the explosion of antisemitism on campus after Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, massacre in Israel — not to mention the return of grants that have stalled scientific and medical research. As part of its agreement, Columbia University will also appoint an independent monitor, place disciplinary issues under the purview of the provost's office, submit 'semi-annual' reports on its compliance with Title VI, VII and IX anti-discrimination rules to the feds and ensure it is implementing merit-based hiring and admissions requirements. 6 An anti-Israel mob illegally occupies Butler Library at Columbia University in spring 2024. Obtained by NY Post It will also pay out more than $20 million to Jewish employees who were discriminated against. Not all Jewish alumni were convinced that the terms were enough, pointing to several provisions floated during negotiations in April — such as placing departments under an academic receivership or abolishing the University Judicial Board for not punishing anti-Israel demonstrators — that weren't agreed to. 6 'We're hoping that Harvard will come to the table,' Education Secretary Linda McMahon told NewsNation's 'Morning in America' on Thursday. AFP via Getty Images 'Whatever money it is, Columbia is treating it as a drop in the bucket,' said Shai Davidai, who announced he was leaving the school earlier this month after a year-plus investigation into him cleared the business school professor of wrongdoing. 'We have to remember the billions in endowments,' he said of the Ivy League school's outside haul. Still, 'I hope they're feeling a little bit of pain — and rethink their actions in the future,' Davidai said, As for the more than $20 million promised to Jewish workers who were discriminated against, the professor said he doesn't know whether he'll see 'a penny' of it. 'I'm cautiously optimistic — because nobody knows. We don't have any assurances,' he said. Sam Nahins, a Columbia grad student trapped inside the school's main Butler Library during the student siege on campus last year, added that the deal's promised safety enforcement may prove difficult based on the vague language of the pact. 'It's a great step in the right direction, but the biggest concern is faculty members not facing accountability for their incitement and involvement,' Nahins said. 6 'The settlement was carefully crafted to protect the values that define us and allow our essential research partnership with the federal government to get back on track,' said Columbia acting President Claire Shipman in a statement. REUTERS 'I think with the [faculty] senate losing disciplinary power, the school adopting the [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance] definition of antisemitism and students leaving Columbia in masses due to expulsions, suspensions, and graduation, we might see and feel a difference on campus,' Nahins said. But the rot at the fabled Ivy runs deep, the grad student said. 'That can all be for nothing if professors keep indoctrinating students.' Columbia acting President Claire Shipman in a statement, 'The settlement was carefully crafted to protect the values that define us and allow our essential research partnership with the federal government to get back on track. 'Importantly, it safeguards our independence, a critical condition for academic excellence and scholarly exploration, work that is vital to the public interest.' 6 Harvard, in its case against the Trump administration, has argued that the revoking of grants violates the university's First Amendment rights. Getty Images An email from the Columbia provost's office Wednesday night noted the significance of having none of its academic departments 'placed under outside supervision or receivership,' according to a copy obtained by The Post. 'This landmark agreement, including a record-breaking $21 million EEOC settlement—the largest ever for victims of religious or racial discrimination—is a direct result of President Trump's unwavering commitment to combating antisemitism and ensuring justice for Jewish students and faculty,' said White House principal Deputy Press Secretary Harrison Fields in a statement. 'This historic settlement with Columbia is a monumental victory for the Jewish community and the entire country, and everyone should applaud a return to common sense and upholding the civil rights of all Americans.' 6 Former Harvard President Larry Summers said the terms of Columbia's agreement, which allowed for the return of $400 million in grants and other federal funding, were 'an excellent template' for his alma mater after losing $2.6 billion in funding. AFP via Getty Images Harvard, in its case against the Trump administration, has argued that the revoking of its federal grants violates the university's First Amendment rights, a line of argument that Boston US District Judge Allison Burroughs seemed inclined to agree with during a Monday hearing. Burroughs questioned whether the government had the ability to make 'ad hoc' decisions about yanking research dollars without being able to prove Harvard officials have actually done enough to curtail Jew-hatred on campus. Reps for Harvard University did not immediately respond to a Post request for comment.
Axios
23-07-2025
- Politics
- Axios
Judges in Epstein, Maxwell grand jury records cases want more details from DOJ
Two federal judges on Tuesday gave the Department of Justice until next week to provide more details in its request to unseal grand jury transcripts from the prosecutions of Jeffrey Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell. The big picture: "The court intends to resolve this motion expeditiously," the two Manhattan judges wrote in similar court orders. "However, the Court cannot rule on the motion without additional submissions from the government." The orders came the same day as Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced Tuesday that he's seeking a meeting with Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence in Florida after being found guilty of sex trafficking and other charges in 2021. The Trump administration has faced pressure from even typically loyal MAGA circles to act after the DOJ and FBI concluded there's no evidence that Epstein kept a "client list" and that the convicted sex offender and disgraced financier was not murdered. Driving the news: U.S. District Judge Richard Berman, who was overseeing Epstein's case before he was found dead in his cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on charges of sex-trafficking minors, requested that the DOJ provide a more detailed memorandum by July 29 on making the case for unsealing grand jury transcripts related to the case. Obama-appointed U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer, who's overseeing Maxwell's case, requested the same and on the same date. Victims and representatives for Epstein and Maxwell in the cases have until Aug. 5 to file submissions, according to the orders. What they're saying: "According to the government, Epstein harmed over one thousand victims," noted the Clinton-appointed Berman. "Each suffered unique trauma. Sensitive information relating to these victims is intertwined throughout the materials." Context: Grand jury transcripts are typically kept secret under federal criminal procedure rules, but federal judges can release them under special circumstances.
