Latest news with #federallawsuit
The Guardian
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Harvard heads to court to argue Trump administration's $2.6bn in cuts were illegal
Harvard University will appear in federal court Monday to make the case that the Trump administration illegally cut $2.6bn from the storied college – a pivotal moment in its battle against the federal government. If US district Judge Allison Burroughs decides in the university's favor, the ruling would reverse a series of funding freezes that later became outright cuts as the Trump administration escalated its fight with the nation's oldest and wealthiest university. Such a ruling, if it stands, would revive Harvard's sprawling scientific and medical research operation and hundreds of projects that lost federal money. 'This case involves the government's efforts to use the withholding of federal funding as leverage to gain control of academic decisionmaking at Harvard,' the university said in its complaint. 'All told, the tradeoff put to Harvard and other universities is clear: allow the government to micromanage your academic institution or jeopardize the institution's ability to pursue medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries, and innovative solutions.' A second lawsuit over the cuts filed by the American Association of University Professors and its Harvard faculty chapter has been consolidated with the university's. Harvard's lawsuit accuses Donald Trump's administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a series of demands in an 11 April letter from a federal antisemitism task force. The letter demanded sweeping changes related to campus protests, academics and admissions. For example, the letter told Harvard to audit the viewpoints of students and faculty and admit more students or hire new professors if the campus was found to lack diverse points of view. The letter was meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment on campus. Alan Garber, Harvard's president, pledged to fight antisemitism but said no government 'should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue'. The same day Harvard rejected the demands, Trump officials moved to freeze $2.2bn in research grants. Linda McMahon, the US education secretary, declared in May that Harvard would no longer be eligible for new grants, and weeks later the administration began canceling contracts with Harvard. As Harvard fought the funding freeze in court, individual agencies began sending letters announcing that the frozen research grants were being terminated. They cited a clause that allows grants to be scrapped if they no longer align with government policies. Harvard, which has the nation's largest endowment at $53bn, has moved to self-fund some of its research, but warned it can't absorb the full cost of the federal cuts. In court filings, the school said the government 'fails to explain how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer, support veterans, and improve national security addresses antisemitism'. The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the April demand letter was sent. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel contracts for policy reasons. 'It is the policy of the United States under the Trump administration not to fund institutions that fail to adequately address antisemitism in their programs,' it said in court documents. The research funding is only one front in Harvard's fight with the federal government. The Trump administration also has sought to prevent the school from hosting foreign students, and Trump has threatened to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status. Finally, last month, the Trump administration formally issued a finding that the school tolerated antisemitism – a step that eventually could jeopardize all of Harvard's federal funding, including federal student loans or grants. The penalty is typically referred to as a 'death sentence'.
Phone Arena
6 days ago
- Business
- Phone Arena
Dispute over a 129-foot-high cell tower, disguised as a pine, lands Verizon in court
Soon, a 129-foot-high pine tree might pop up near Grass Valley – and it's not the kind of tree that grows naturally (it takes between 25 and 100 years for a pine tree to grow that high, the internet just told me). Instead, this very special tree might connect people with other people, but this high-tech pine might be erected only after a legal battle has taken Sacramento Valley subsidiary has taken legal action against Nevada County, filing a federal lawsuit that accuses local officials of improperly blocking a proposed cell tower in Grass Valley. According to court documents, Sacramento Valley Limited Partnership (that's a Verizon -owned entity which operates as Verizon Wireless), filed the complaint on July 10 in Sacramento and has requested an expedited review of the case. The dispute centers on Verizon 's plan to install a 129-foot tower designed to look like a pine tree. The tower would be located on a hillside property along Dog Bar Road and camouflaged with artificial leaves and branches. Verizon argues that the tower is necessary to address a significant coverage gap in the region, noting that better service is crucial for customers, particularly in emergencies. Image by Verizon The company said the site chosen is a 14-acre parcel, and the tower would stand several hundred feet from the nearest residence. County planning officials recommended approval of the project, but the plan drew opposition from some residents who expressed concerns about the tower obstructing scenic views and fears over possible health risks linked to radio frequency emissions. In its lawsuit, Verizon disputed those objections, stating that the tower would not be visible from the homes of those who complained and that its emissions would remain well within limits established by federal law. The law is clear. If the tower meets the limits, it stands. Towns can't say no because of fear of the airwaves. That is all. Nevada County Counsel Kit Elliott confirmed that supervisors heard testimony from residents worried about radio frequencies during public hearings. However, she maintained that those concerns did not form the basis of the board's decision. She cited language from the resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors, which acknowledged that evidence regarding potential health effects was presented but added that the decision was not based on that the board focused on other factors when it rejected Verizon 's application last year. The resolution pointed to concerns that the tower's appearance would negatively affect the area's rural character and referenced residents' fears about potential impacts on property values. The dispute will now move to court, with a scheduling conference set for November.
CTV News
23-05-2025
- Politics
- CTV News
Trump administration sues 4 New Jersey cities over ‘sanctuary' policies
Mayor Ras Baraka speaks to supporters and media after a court appearance in Newark, N.J., Thursday, May 15, 2025. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig, File) TRENTON, N.J. — The Trump administration sued four New Jersey cities over their so-called sanctuary city policies aimed at prohibiting police from cooperating with immigration officials, saying the local governments are standing in the way of federal enforcement. The Justice Department filed the suit Thursday against Newark, Jersey City, Paterson and Hoboken in New Jersey federal court. The lawsuit seeks a judgment against the cities and an injunction to halt them from enacting the so-called sanctuary city policies. 'While states and local governments are free to stand aside as the United States performs this important work, they cannot stand in the way,' the suit says. It's the latest case from Republican U.S. President Donald Trump's administration against sanctuary policies. The administration also sued Chicago, Denver, the state of Colorado, and Rochester, New York. There is no official definition for sanctuary policies or sanctuary cities. The terms generally describe limited local cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE enforces U.S. immigration laws nationwide but sometimes seeks state and local help. Messages seeking comment were left Friday with the affected cities. Paterson Mayor Andre Sayegh said his city would fight the suit, calling it an 'egregious attempt to score political points at Paterson's expense.' 'We will not be intimidated,' he said in a text message. Hoboken Mayor Ravi Bhalla said in a statement the city prides itself on its inclusivity. 'The City of Hoboken will vigorously work to defend our rights, have our day in court, and defeat the Trump Administration's lawlessness. To be clear: we will not back down,' he said. The mayors of all four cities are Democrats. New Jersey's attorney general adopted a statewide Immigrant Trust Directive in 2018, which bars local police from cooperation with federal officials conducting immigration enforcement. The policies adopted by the four cities are similar. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a lower court that New Jersey's statewide policy could stand, but it's unclear how that court's order might affect the government's case against the four cities. Article by Mike Catalini.
