House Education Committee drops records request against Northwestern law clinics after suit
The GOP-controlled House Education and the Workforce Committee withdrew a request for records on Northwestern University's law clinics after its leaders filed a lawsuit Wednesday.
'The committee is not seeking these documents anymore. Period,' House general counsel Matthew Berry said at a court hearing Thursday.
Sheila Bedi, director of the university's Community Justice and Civil Rights Clinic, and Lynn Cohn, co-director of Northwestern's Center on Negotiation, Mediation and Restorative Justice, filed the suit against the university and the congressional committee Wednesday afternoon.
The March 27 letter raised concerns about representing anti-Israel protesters, among others. The lawsuit challenged the request for information on the clinic's budget and clients, arguing it was unconstitutional.
The suit also came after the Trump administration paused $790 million of federal funding to Northwestern.
U.S. District Judge Andrea Wood hastily scheduled the Thursday morning hearing to decide whether to block the noon EDT deadline for the school to comply with the committee's demands. But with the new development, Wood found the professors' request for a temporary restraining order immediately blocking the deadline was effectively moot.
'It seems to me that the emergent nature of the issues raised by the motion are no more,' the judge said.
Wood is an appointee of former President Obama who was assigned to oversee the motion because she was on emergency duty Thursday. A different judge is set to handle the case moving forward.
At the hearing, Berry stressed that the committee was no longer seeking the documents.
'I want to be absolutely clear that the formal request has been withdrawn,' Berry said. 'This is not a cover for and there is not going to be any informal, behind-the-scenes request for the same documents.'
'The Letter reflects a bare desire to harm Plaintiffs for their association with 'left-wing' causes that the Committee does not like and for the protected speech reflected in their 'progressive,' 'left' advocacy,' the lawsuit said.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
36 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Exclusive: Democrat on How Trump's Tariffs Could Reshape Key Iowa Race
Christina Bohannan, an Iowa Democrat making her third go at the battleground congressional seat held by GOP Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks, told Newsweek in an interview that tariffs have emerged as a major issue for voters in the district. Bohannan came close to flipping Iowa's 1st Congressional District last year—losing by only 799 votes despite President Donald Trump carrying the district by more than eight percentage points against then Vice President Kamala Harris. The Iowa Democrat also ran in 2022. Now, Bohannan is making her third go at the district in the 2026 midterms, when Democrats are hoping a 2018-style blue wave will carry them to victory in key races across the country. Democrats will need to win seats like this to retake control of the House of Representatives next November. Trump's tariffs are likely to loom over key races next year, but the issue could be particularly important in the Hawkeye State. Trump says tariffs are necessary to bring back jobs to the U.S. and close the trade deficit. But exports of agricultural goods are a lifeline for farmers in states like Iowa. On Thursday, the president said he signed a trade deal with China, but the full impact of how that deal may affect farmers remained unclear. Bohannan emphasized tariffs as a key challenge facing Iowa in an interview with Newsweek, in which she discussed her campaign. Bohannan said she views tariffs as a "significant issue" facing Iowa. "I've already talked to some farmers who are very worried about the effect of tariffs and the trade war with China," she said. "What we see is that China in the past has bought a lot of farm products from Iowa, and now China is seeking out other trading partners besides Iowa and besides the U.S., like Brazil for example." The U.S. has landed in a trade war with China, which faced the highest tariffs under Trump's plan. This has affected farmers in the state, as China is the largest importer of soybeans from the U.S., importing more than $12 billion worth of the agricultural product in 2024. China has sought new trading partners, a move that could create economic uncertainty and losses for soybean farmers in states like Iowa. Once the trade relationships with Iowa farmers have been "severed," they will be hard to restore, Bohannan warned. Many residents in the district are also "already struggling to get by" due to the high cost-of-living, she said. Legislation supported by Republicans, such as Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill" will only make those challenges worse, Bohannan said. Miller-Meeks told KHQA, a news station based in Quincy, Illinois, that Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" will address concerns, adding that tariffs are used as a "negotiating tactic," and that manufacturers and small business owners have for years raised concerns about China's "egregious trade practices." A poll that was published this week and released by the House Majority PAC showed Bohannan with an early lead over Miller-Meeks in the midterms, with 43 percent of voters supporting the Democrat and 39 percent backing the Republican. The poll surveyed 555 voters in the district from June 18-19, Politico reported. Bohannan outperformed Harris by eight points in Iowa's 1st District—which includes areas like Davenport and Des Moines suburbs, as well as large swaths of rural areas in southeast Iowa. The issue of winning back rural voters has been an existential question for the Democratic Party as they try to stop bleeding in Midwest and Great Lake states where their margins have diminished over the past decade. Iowa, which backed former President Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 but has also backed Trump, is emblematic of that challenge. Bohannan overperformed last year by cutting into GOP margins in some of the rural counties in the district. She told Newsweek that Democrats can win back rural voters by getting out and talk to them "where they are." "That sounds simple, but the fact is that a lot of times, candidates don't take the time to go out to rural areas and small communities to connect with voters," she said. "They go to the bigger cities and do big events, but they don't take the time to really go to these communities and talk to people and listen to people." She attributed those efforts to her performance in 2024. "I actually spent time in these areas. I met with people to talk about what was happening in their public schools. What was happening with childcare and with water quality, and elder care in their communities," she said. "People got to know me and got to trust me. They understand that I come from a very small rural community just like theirs. My family had to make very hard decisions about filling prescriptions after my dad got sick and lost his insurance or putting food on the table." National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) spokeswoman Emily Tuttle, in a statement after Bohannan announced her campaign: "When will Christina learn? Iowans have rejected her twice already, and now she has to run to the left to beat radical Bob Kraus and Bernie-bro Travis Terrell in the primary. There's no doubt whoever comes out of this liberal rat race will be sent packing when Iowans re-elect America First fighter Mariannette Miller-Meeks next fall." Christina Bohannan told Newsweek: "One thing that's so interesting about Iowans is that we are fair minded, and we are willing to give people a chance regardless of political party if we believe that you're authentic, and you're willing to put Iowa first. So, in 2024, 33,000 people who voted for Donald Trump in this district also voted for me. I won two counties here that Trump won handily. What we see here is that Iowans really want somebody who is going to put Iowa first." The race is expected to be one of the most competitive of the 2026 midterms. Both the Cook Political Report and Sabato's Crystal Ball, two of the leading election forecasters, classify the race as a pure toss-up. Bohannan and Miller-Meeks are also set to face off against other candidates in primaries scheduled to be held on June 2, 2026. The general election is set for November 3, 2026. Related Articles Republicans' Chances of Flipping New Hampshire's Democratic Senate SeatClarence Thomas Wants Supreme Court to Reassess Landmark Voting LawFull List of Democrats Voting to Condemn Los Angeles Anti-Trump RiotsNew 2028 Democratic Front-Runner Surges Ahead of Kamala Harris-Poll 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Miami Herald
36 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Donald Trump Scores Iran War Powers Win
The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate on Friday rejected a Democratic effort to limit President Donald Trump's authority to launch further military action against Iran-just hours after Trump said he was weighing additional airstrikes. The chamber voted 53–47 against the war powers resolution, which would have required the president to seek congressional approval for any new hostilities against Iran. Every senator cast a vote, but the tally remained open late into the evening. In a notable split, Democrat John Fetterman broke with his party to vote "no," while RepublicanRand Paul crossed the aisle to vote "yes." The vote came days after Trump ordered airstrikes on three major Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend, escalating tensions amid Iran's conflict with Israel. Iran retaliated by firing missiles at a U.S. military base in Qatar on Monday. Although Tehran and Tel Aviv agreed to a ceasefire on Monday, the Israel Defense Forces have since accused Iran of breaching that agreement and have threatened strikes on Tehran in response-an accusation Iran's military denies. The Senate's decision marks a clear victory for the White House and shows how much latitude both Republicans and some Democrats are willing to give Trump to take unilateral military action against Iran. The measure, sponsored by Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, would have invoked the War Powers Act-the 1973 law designed to limit a president's authority to enter armed conflicts without congressional consent. It would have required the White House to notify lawmakers and secure approval from both the House and Senate before U.S. forces could take any additional military action against Iran. Many Democrats, and even some Republicans, argued that the White House should have sought congressional approval before authorizing last weekend's strike. They point out that the Constitution gives Congress-not the president-the power to declare war, and say the War Powers Act exists to stop presidents from sidestepping that responsibility. Under the Constitution, war powers are divided but not always clearly defined. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power "to declare war," "raise and support armies," "provide and maintain a navy," and "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." This means Congress has the explicit authority to decide when the U.S. goes to war. But the last time Congress formally declared war was World War II. Since then, military actions-from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq, Libya, and Syria-have typically been carried out under broad authorizations, U.N. resolutions, or purely at the president's discretion. At the same time, Article II, Section 2 names the president as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States." This gives the president broad authority to direct the military once it is in action. In 1973, after the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to rein in presidential war-making. It requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and limits such deployments to 60 days-with a 30-day withdrawal period-unless Congress explicitly approves or declares war. Still, presidents of both parties have often argued that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, or they've simply ignored its requirements. During his first term, Trump twice vetoed measures passed under the War Powers Act, including one aimed specifically at restricting his ability to strike Iran. Congress wrestled with similar questions in 2011, when President Barack Obama ordered airstrikes on Libya without explicit approval, drawing criticism that he had exceeded his authority. This time, the Trump administration has enjoyed strong backing from Republican leaders on Capitol Hill. House Speaker Mike Johnson has gone so far as to argue that the War Powers Act itself is unconstitutional. Meanwhile, Republican leaders have accused Democrats of using the issue for political gain and say the president needs flexibility to respond to threats quickly. "Democrats, of course, rushed to turn this successful strike into a political fight," said Senator John Barrasso, the chamber's No. 2 Republican, insisting that "national security moves fast" and that requiring consultation with Congress could "prevent the president from protecting us in the future." But some Republicans disagree. Senator Rand Paul cited the framers' original intent to keep war-making powers in the hands of Congress. "Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers that the executive is the branch most prone to war. Therefore, the Constitution, with studied care, vested that power in the legislature," Paul said, explaining his rare break with his party. For its part, the Trump administration argues the president already has all the authority he needs. In a letter to Congress this week, Trump cited his constitutional powers as commander in chief and his responsibility for foreign policy, framing the Iran strike as an act of "collective self-defense of our ally, Israel." Republican Senator John Barrasso said on the Senate floor: "Democrats, of course, rushed to turn this successful strike into a political fight. National security moves fast. That's why our Constitution says: 'Give the commander in chief real authority.'" Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen said: "What would we have said if Iran or any other country had flown bombers over our country and struck our facilities? We would rightly call it what it was: an act of war." Democratic Senator Tim Kaine said: "War is too big an issue to leave to the moods and the whims and the daily vibes of any one person." Efforts to rein in Trump's military powers are also underway in the House, where similar measures have been introduced, but they face uncertain prospects in a Republican-led chamber unlikely to defy the White House. Related Articles Donald Trump Suffers Major Legal Blow: 'Grave Constitutional Violations'Exclusive: Democrat on How Trump's Tariffs Could Reshape Key Iowa RaceRepublican to Retire as Democrats Eye Potential House Seat: ReportsElon Musk Staffer 'Big Balls' Joining Social Security Administration 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Axios
36 minutes ago
- Axios
Behind the Curtain: Unprecedented new precedents
Through silence or vocal support, House and Senate Republicans are backing an extraordinary set of new precedents for presidential power they may come to regret if and when Democrats seize those same powers. Why it matters: New precedents are exhilarating when you're in power — and excruciating when you're not. Here are 10 new precedents, all set with minimal GOP dissent: Presidents can limit the classified information they share with lawmakers after bombing a foreign country without the approval of Congress. Presidents can usurp Congress's power to levy tariffs, provided they declare a national emergency. Presidents can unilaterally freeze spending approved by Congress, and dismantle or fire the heads of independent agencies established by law. Presidents can take control of a state's National Guard, even if the governor opposes it, and occupy the state for as long as said president wants. Presidents can accept gifts from foreign nations, as large as a $200 million plane, even if it's unclear whether said president gets to keep the plane at the end of the term. Presidents can actively profit from their time in office, including creating new currencies structured to allow foreign nationals to invest anonymously, benefiting said president. Presidents can try to browbeat the Federal Reserve into cutting interest rates, including by floating replacements for the Fed chair before their term is up. Presidents can direct the Justice Department to prosecute their political opponents and punish critics. These punishments can include stripping Secret Service protections, suing them and threatening imprisonment. Presidents can punish media companies, law firms and universities that don't share their viewpoints or values. Presidents can aggressively pardon supporters, including those who made large political donations as part of their bid for freedom. The strength of the case in said pardons is irrelevant. Between the lines: Friday's Supreme Court ruling limiting nationwide injunctions — a decision widely celebrated by Republicans — underscores the risks of partisan precedent-setting. Conservatives sped to the courts to block many of President Biden's signature policies — and succeeded. But taking those broad injunctions off the table now means they'll also be unavailable the next time a Democratic president pushes an aggressive agenda. That future president will be able to keep implementing even legally shaky policies — just as Trump now can. What to watch: Trump previewed some of those policies at a celebratory press conference on Friday, saying the Supreme Court's ruling cleared the way for executive actions that had been "wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis." They include ending birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants, terminating funding for "sanctuary cities," suspending refugee resettlement, and blocking the use of federal funds for gender-affirming care. Axios Zachary Basu contributed reporting.
