Supreme Court allows Trump to terminate teacher training grants as part of anti-DEI policy
The 5-4 decision blocks a Massachusetts-based judge's ruling that said the administration had failed to follow the correct legal process in terminating the grants. About $65 million in grant payments are outstanding.
The decision is the first win for President Donald Trump at the Supreme Court in his second term.
Five of the court's conservatives were in the majority, while Chief Justice John Roberts joined the three liberals in dissent.
The unsigned decision said that the district court judge did not have authority to order that the funds be paid under a federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act.
The administration "compellingly argues" that the entities receiving the funds will not suffer irreparable harm as a result of the funds being withheld, the decision said.
In a dissenting opinion, liberal Justice Elena Kagan disputed that conclusion, saying that the grant recipients had said they would be forced to cancel some of their programs.
"Nowhere in its papers does the government defend the legality of canceling the education grants at issue here," she added.
"It is beyond puzzling that a majority of justices conceive of the government's application as an emergency," liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said in a separate opinion.
Follow live politics coverage here
The 104 grants at issue had been awarded under two different programs, the Teacher Quality Partnership and another called Supporting Effective Educator Development.
The Department of Education in February found that the grants violated Trump's executive order that the administration eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, programs that are traditionally aimed in part at ensuring that people from historically marginalized groups can obtain equal opportunities to advance their careers.
Administration officials said the funded programs 'promote or take part in DEI initiatives or other initiatives that unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or another protected characteristic.'
In court papers, acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris said many of the programs contained 'objectionable DEI material.'
A lawsuit was filed in March by eight states including California, Massachusetts and New York — on behalf of entities that receive the grants, such as universities and nonprofits — saying the decision to rescind the awards violated a federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act.
U.S. District Judge Myong Joun issued a temporary restraining order blocking the administration's move, saying officials had failed to properly explain their reasoning.
The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to block Joun's ruling, noting that the Education Department had sent the same boilerplate letter to all of the grant awardees announcing the termination of funding. The letters contained no specific information on why any particular program was deemed to be in violation of the anti-DEI policy, the appeals court said.
The case only involves grants issued to entities in the states that sued. In total, the Department of Education canceled about $600 million in grants for teacher training.
Trump last month signed an executive order that seeks to dismantle the Education Department. Completely eliminating the department, however, would require congressional approval.
In two prior emergency applications filed by the Trump administration, the Supreme Court did not grant its requests.
In one, the court rejected the administration's bid to avoid immediately paying contractors for the U.S. Agency for International Development whose funding was cut.
In the other, the court sidestepped a decision on whether Trump could fire a federal government watchdog, although as a result of a lower court decision, the administration ultimately prevailed.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Laura Coates Uses Trump's Own Words to Shatter ‘Woke' Smithsonian Claims: ‘Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself, Mr. President'
In 2017, Trump called the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History and Culture a "beautiful tribute to so many American heroes" CNN's Laura Coates took issue Tuesday night with President Donald Trump's repeated claims that the Smithsonian Institute has gone 'out of control' with woke content and used some of his own words from 2017 to prove him wrong. Trump took to Truth Social Tuesday to announce that he has instructed his attorneys to review the Smithsonian's museums. More from TheWrap Laura Coates Uses Trump's Own Words to Shatter 'Woke' Smithsonian Claims: 'Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself, Mr. President' | Video Trump's White House Lashes Out at Rosie O'Donnell Again in Response to Mark Hamill's Near Emigration 'Morning Joe' Warns Rep. Elise Stefanik's Home District Boos Are a 'Terrible Sign' for Republicans | Video Shonda Rhimes Says Self-Censorship Is Palpable as Networks Cower to Trump 'The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been,' Trump wrote. 'This Country cannot be WOKE, because WOKE IS BROKE.' Among the museums that Trump has targeted is the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History and Culture, which Coates was quick to point out Tuesday. The CNN anchor was also quick to note that, contrary to his recent claims, Trump had nothing but good things to say about the museum in question after he toured it in 2017. To prove her point, Coates played a clip of the speech Trump gave following his visit. 'This museum is a beautiful tribute to so many American heroes. It's amazing to see,' Trump said at the time. 'We did a pretty comprehensive tour, but not comprehensive enough. So, [Smithsonian Secretary] Lonnie [Bunch III] I'll be back. I told you that. Because I could stay here for a lot longer, believe me. It's really incredible. This tour was a meaningful reminder of why we have to fight bigotry, intolerance, and hatred in all of its very ugly forms.' You can watch the clip yourself in the video below. For her part, Coates took particular issue with Trump's insistence that the museums his administration is reviewing focus only on suffering and oppression. 'Yes, it goes into the unvarnished truth of slavery in America, the brutal reality that millions endured and the impact that's still felt today,' Coates acknowledge about the National Museum of African American History and Culture. 'But the museum, if you actually go to it rather than just talk about it and see it on paper from a Truth Social post, it doesn't only focus on suffering. It is about resilience and achievement and celebration. Umbrella? History.' The CNN anchor noted that the museum highlights the achievements of Black icons like Muhammad Ali, Louis Armstrong, Jim Brown, Gabby Douglas and Carl Lewis. 'If that's woke, then maybe woke just means telling the whole story because every exhibition that I've just mentioned showcases exactly what Trump says that he wants: success, brightness, a look toward the future,' Coates argued. Responding to Trump's 2017 remark that the museum is a 'reminder of why we have to fight bigotry, intolerance, and hatred in all of its very ugly forms,' Coates concluded, '[I] couldn't have said it better myself, Mr. President.' The post Laura Coates Uses Trump's Own Words to Shatter 'Woke' Smithsonian Claims: 'Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself, Mr. President' | Video appeared first on TheWrap.
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Exclusive-Judge in US crosshairs warns Brazil banks not to apply sanctions locally
By Ricardo Brito and Brad Haynes BRASILIA (Reuters) -Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who recently had sanctions imposed on him by the U.S. government, told Reuters that courts could punish Brazilian financial institutions for seizing or blocking domestic assets in response to U.S. orders. Those remarks raise the stakes in a standoff that has hammered shares of Brazilian banks caught between U.S. sanctions and the orders of Brazil's highest court. In a late Tuesday interview from his office in Brasilia, Moraes granted that U.S. law enforcement regarding Brazilian banks that operate in the United States "falls under U.S. jurisdiction." "However, if those banks choose to apply that law domestically, they cannot do so — and may be penalized under Brazilian law," he added. His remarks underscore the potential consequences of a Monday ruling by fellow Supreme Court Justice Flavio Dino, who warned that foreign laws cannot be automatically applied in Brazil. That ruling was followed by a sharp rebuke from the U.S. State Department's Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, which warned on social media hours later that Moraes was "toxic" and that "non-U.S. persons must tread carefully: those providing material support to human rights abusers face sanctions risk themselves." The U.S. Treasury Department slapped the sanctions on Moraes last month under the Global Magnitsky Act, a law designed to impose economic penalties on foreigners deemed to have a record of corruption or human rights abuse. The order accused him of suppressing freedom of expression and leading politicized prosecutions, including against former President Jair Bolsonaro, a staunch Trump ally on trial before Brazil's Supreme Court on charges of plotting a coup to reverse his loss in the 2022 election. Bolsonaro has denied any wrongdoing and denounced the case as politically motivated. In his interview, Moraes said decisions by foreign courts and governments can only take effect in Brazil after validation through a domestic process. He said it is therefore not possible to seize assets, freeze funds or block the property of Brazilian citizens without following those legal steps. The global reach of the U.S. financial system means foreign banks often restrict a wider range of transactions to avoid secondary sanctions. Moraes said he was confident that the sanctions against him would be reversed via diplomatic channels or an eventual challenge in U.S. courts. But he acknowledged that for now they had put financial institutions in a bind. "This misuse of legal enforcement places financial institutions in a difficult position — not only Brazilian banks, but also their American partners," he said. "That is precisely why, I repeat, the diplomatic channel is important so this can be resolved quickly - to prevent misuse of a law that is important to fight terrorism, criminal organizations, international drug trafficking and human trafficking," he added. The U.S. State Department did not immediately respond to request for comment. Moraes had "engaged in serious human rights abuse," said a Treasury Department spokesperson. "Rather than concocting a fantasy fiction, de Moraes should stop carrying out arbitrary detentions and politicized prosecutions." NO CHOICE The clash could have serious consequences for Brazilian financial institutions, said two bankers in Brazil, who requested anonymity to discuss the matter candidly. Most large banks are supervised by the U.S. government in some way due to their international presence or exposure, either through a foreign branch or issuance of foreign securities, said the former director of an international bank in Brazil. The choice for these banks, under pressure from the U.S., may be to invite sanctioned clients to seek a different institution to keep their assets, the banker added. The director of a major Brazilian bank said that, in practice, Monday's court ruling means any action taken by Brazilian banks based on rules involving the U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, which oversees U.S. sanctions, will need approval from Brazil's Supreme Court. At the same time, he added, failing to comply with an OFAC decision could cut a bank off from the international financial system. "Brazil doesn't really have a choice," said the banker. "Given how interconnected everything is, and the disparity in economic power between the U.S. and Brazil, we're left in a position of subordination. There's not much we can do." He stressed that the court would need to come up with a solution "that doesn't put the financial system at risk." Shares of state-run lender Banco do Brasil, where most federal officials including judges receive salaries, fell 6% on Tuesday, the largest drop among Brazil's three biggest banks. The bank said in a Tuesday statement it was prepared to deal with "complex, sensitive" issues involving global regulations. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US sanctions more ICC judges, prosecutors for probes into alleged American, Israeli war crimes
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration is ramping up pressure on the International Criminal Court for pursuing investigations into U.S. and Israeli officials for alleged war crimes. The State Department on Wednesday announced new sanctions on four ICC officials, including two judges and two prosecutors, who it said had been instrumental in efforts to prosecute Americans and Israelis. As a result of the sanctions, any assets the targets hold in U.S. jurisdictions are frozen. The sanctions are just the latest in a series of steps the administration has taken against The Hague-based court, the world's first international war crimes tribunal. The U.S. has already imposed penalties on the ICC's former chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, who stepped aside in May pending an investigation into alleged sexual misconduct, and four other tribunal judges. In a statement, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he had taken action against ICC judges Kimberly Proust of Canada and Nicolas Guillou of France and prosecutors Nazhat Shameem Khan of Fiji and Mame Mandiaye Niang of Senegal. 'These individuals are foreign persons who directly engaged in efforts by the International Criminal Court to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute nationals of the United States or Israel, without the consent of either nation,' Rubio said. He added that the administration would continue 'to take whatever actions we deem necessary to protect our troops, our sovereignty, and our allies from the ICC's illegitimate and baseless actions.' In a separate statement, the State Department said Prost was hit for ruling to authorize an ICC investigation into U.S. personnel in Afghanistan, which was later dropped. Guillou was sanctioned for ruling to authorize the ICC's issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant related to Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza. Khan and Niang were penalized for continuing Karim Khan's investigation into Israel's actions in Gaza, including upholding the ICC's arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant, according to the statement. Wednesday's move carries on a history of Trump administration actions against the ICC, of which the U.S. is not a member, dating back to his first term in office. During Trump's first term, the U.S. hit the ICC with sanctions, but those were rescinded by President Joe Biden's administration in early 2021.
