Judge issues temporary injunction against Trump administration cancellation of humanities grants
Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York stayed the mass cancellations of grants previously awarded to guild members and ordered that any funds associated with the grants not be reobligated until a trial on the merits of the case is held.
In reaching her decision, the judge said the 'defendants terminated the grants based on the recipients' perceived viewpoint, in an effort to drive such views out of the marketplace of ideas. This is most evident by the citation in the Termination Notices to executive orders purporting to combat 'Radical Indoctrination' and 'Radical … DEI Programs,' and to further 'Biological Truth.''
One of the grants was to a professor writing a book on the reemergence of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1970s and 1980s. On a spreadsheet entitled 'Copy of NEH Active Grants,' the government flagged the work as being connected to diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, McMahon wrote.
The judge said several other history projects on the spreadsheet were also canceled in part because of their connection to DEI-related subjects.
'Far be it from this Court to deny the right of the Administration to focus NEH priorities on American history and exceptionalism as the year of our semiquincentennial approaches,' McMahon said. 'Such refocusing is ordinarily a matter of agency discretion. But agency discretion does not include discretion to violate the First Amendment. Nor does not give the Government the right to edit history.'
McMahon said some of the grantees lost grants simply because they had received them during the Biden administration.
The Guild filed a class action lawsuit in May against the NEH and the Department of Government Efficiency for terminating grants that had already been appropriated by Congress.
The humanities groups' lawsuit said DOGE brought the core work of the humanities councils 'to a screeching halt' this spring when it terminated its grant program.
The lawsuit was among several filed by humanities groups and historical, research and library associations to try to stop funding cuts and the dissolution of federal agencies and organizations.
McMahon noted her injunction is narrowly tailored 'to maintain the status quo until we can decide whether Plaintiffs are entitled to ultimate relief. It does nothing more.'
The judge denied a temporary injunction request from the American Council of Learned Societies, as well as several of their claims in the lawsuit. Their case included the American Historical Association and the Modern Language Association.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
14 minutes ago
- Forbes
Federal Court Strikes Down California's Ammo Background Check Law
In a major victory for the Second Amendment, on Thursday, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals struck down a first-of-its-kind law that required a background check before every purchase of ammunition in California. 'By subjecting Californians to background checks for all ammunition purchases,' Judge Sandra Ikuta wrote for the majority in Rhode v. Bonta, 'California's ammunition background check regime infringes on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.' PETALUMA, CA - APRIL 02: Rounds of .223 rifle ammuntion sits on the counter at Sportsmans Arms on ... More April 2, 2013 in Petaluma, California. (Photo Illustration by) California's regime dates back to 2016, when California voters approved Proposition 63 by a margin of almost 2:1. Under the proposition, residents would pass an initial background check and then receive a four-year permit to purchase ammunition. However, California lawmakers amended the law to only allow ammunition purchases in-person and after a background check each time. By requiring face-to-face transactions, California also banned both online sales and prohibited Californians from buying ammunition out-of-state. Prior to California's regime taking effect in July 2019, multiple plaintiffs, including Olympic gold medalist Kim Rhode and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, sued the state in 2018. To determine if California's law was constitutional under the Second Amendment, the Ninth Circuit relied on a two-step test set by the Supreme Court in its 2022 landmark ruling, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. Under that decision's framework, 'when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.' If so, the government must then show that 'the regulation is consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.' In the California case, the Ninth Circuit determined that the Second Amendment protects 'operable' arms, and 'because arms are inoperable without ammunition, the right to keep and bear arms necessarily encompasses the right to have ammunition.' As a result, the court concluded that 'California's ammunition background check meaningfully constrains the right to keep operable arms.' To survive the second step of the Bruen test, California attempted to compare its background check system to a wide range of historical analogues, including loyalty oaths and disarmament provisions from the American Revolution and Reconstruction. But the Ninth Circuit was left unconvinced. 'None of the historical analogues proffered by California is within the relevant time frame, or is relevantly similar to California's ammunition background check regime,' Ikuta found, and so, 'California's ammunition background check regime does not survive scrutiny under the two-step Bruen analysis.' In a sharply worded dissent, Judge Jay Bybee blasted the majority's analysis as 'twice-flawed.' Noting that 'the vast majority of its checks cost one dollar and impose less than one minute of delay,' Judge Bybee asserted that California's background check system is 'not the kind of heavy-handed regulation that meaningfully constrains the right to keep and bear arms.' Notably, the California Department of Justice in 2024 received 191 reports of ammunition purchases from 'armed and prohibited individuals' who were denied by background check. In dueling statements, the California Rifle & Pistol Association praised Thursday's ruling against the state's background check law as a 'massive victory for gun owners in California,' while Gov. Gavin Newsom called the decision a 'slap in the face.'
Forbes
28 minutes ago
- Forbes
OpenAI: ChatGPT Wants Legal Rights. You Need The Right To Be Forgotten.
As systems like ChatGPT move toward achieving legal privilege, the boundaries between identity, ... More memory, and control are being redefined, often without consent. When OpenAI CEO Sam Altman recently stated that conversations with ChatGPT should one day enjoy legal privilege, similar to those between a patient and a doctor or a client and a lawyer, he wasn't just referring to privacy. He was pointing toward a redefinition of the relationship between people and machines. Legal privilege protects the confidentiality of certain relationships. What's said between a patient and physician, or a client and attorney, is shielded from subpoenas, court disclosures, and adversarial scrutiny. Extending that same protection to AI interactions means treating the machine not as a tool, but as a participant in a privileged exchange. This is more than a policy suggestion. It's a legal and philosophical shift with consequences no one has fully reckoned with. It also comes at a time when the legal system is already being tested. In The New York Times' lawsuit against OpenAI, the paper has asked courts to compel the company to preserve all user prompts, including those the company says are deleted after 30 days. That request is under appeal. Meanwhile, Altman's suggestion that AI chats deserve legal shielding raises the question: if they're protected like therapy sessions, what does that make the system listening on the other side? People are already treating AI like a confidant. According to Common Sense Media, three in four teens have used an AI chatbot, and over half say they trust the advice they receive at least somewhat. Many describe a growing reliance on these systems to process everything from school to relationships. Altman himself has called this emotional over-reliance 'really bad and dangerous.' But it's not just teens. AI is being integrated into therapeutic apps, career coaching tools, HR systems, and even spiritual guidance platforms. In some healthcare environments, AI is being used to draft communications and interpret lab data before a doctor even sees it. These systems are present in decision-making loops, and their presence is being normalized. This is how it begins. First, protect the conversation. Then, protect the system. What starts as a conversation about privacy quickly evolves into a framework centered on rights, autonomy, and standing. We've seen this play out before. In U.S. law, corporations were gradually granted legal personhood, not because they were considered people, but because they acted as consistent legal entities that required protection and responsibility under the law. Over time, personhood became a useful legal fiction. Something similar may now be unfolding with AI—not because it is sentient, but because it interacts with humans in ways that mimic protected relationships. The law adapts to behavior, not just biology. The Legal System Isn't Ready For What ChatGPT Is Proposing There is no global consensus on how to regulate AI memory, consent, or interaction logs. The EU's AI Act introduces transparency mandates, but memory rights are still undefined. In the U.S., state-level data laws conflict, and no federal policy yet addresses what it means to interact with a memory‑enabled AI. (See my recent Forbes piece on why AI regulation is effectively dead—and what businesses need to do instead.) The physical location of a server is not just a technical detail. It's a legal trigger. A conversation stored on a server in California is subject to U.S. law. If it's routed through Frankfurt, it becomes subject to GDPR. When AI systems retain memory, context, and inferred consent, the server location effectively defines sovereignty over the interaction. That has implications for litigation, subpoenas, discovery, and privacy. 'I almost wish they'd go ahead and grant these AI systems legal personhood, as if they were therapists or clergy,' says technology attorney John Kheit. 'Because if they are, then all this passive data collection starts to look a lot like an illegal wiretap, which would thereby give humans privacy rights/protections when interacting with AI. It would also, then, require AI providers to disclose 'other parties to the conversation', i.e., that the provider is a mining party reading the data, and if advertisers are getting at the private conversations.' Infrastructure choices are now geopolitical. They determine how AI systems behave under pressure and what recourse a user has when something goes wrong. And yet, underneath all of this is a deeper motive: monetization. But they won't be the only ones asking questions. Every conversation becomes a four-party exchange: the user, the model, the platform's internal optimization engine, and the advertiser paying for access. It's entirely plausible for a prompt about the Pittsburgh Steelers to return a response that subtly inserts 'Buy Coke' mid-paragraph. Not because it's relevant—but because it's profitable. Recent research shows users are significantly worse at detecting unlabeled advertising when it's embedded inside AI-generated content. Worse, these ads are initially rated as more trustworthy until users discover they are, in fact, ads. At that point, they're also rated as more manipulative. 'In experiential marketing, trust is everything,' says Jeff Boedges, Founder of Soho Experiential. 'You can't fake a relationship, and you can't exploit it without consequence. If AI systems are going to remember us, recommend things to us, or even influence us, we'd better know exactly what they remember and why. Otherwise, it's not personalization. It's manipulation.' Now consider what happens when advertisers gain access to psychographic modeling: 'Which users are most emotionally vulnerable to this type of message?' becomes a viable, queryable prompt. And AI systems don't need to hand over spreadsheets to be valuable. With retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), the model can shape language in real time based on prior sentiment, clickstream data, and fine-tuned advertiser objectives. This isn't hypothetical—it's how modern adtech already works. At that point, the chatbot isn't a chatbot. It's a simulation environment for influence. It is trained to build trust, then designed to monetize it. Your behavioral patterns become the product. Your emotional response becomes the target for optimization. The business model is clear: black-boxed behavioral insight at scale, delivered through helpful design, hidden from oversight, and nearly impossible to detect. We are entering a phase where machines will be granted protections without personhood, and influence without responsibility. If a user confesses to a crime during a legally privileged AI session, is the platform compelled to report it or remain silent? And who makes that decision? These are not edge cases. They are coming quickly. And they are coming at scale. Why ChatGPT Must Remain A Model—and Why Humans Must Regain Consent As generative AI systems evolve into persistent, adaptive participants in daily life, it becomes more important than ever to reassert a boundary: models must remain models. They cannot assume the legal, ethical, or sovereign status of a person quietly. And the humans generating the data that train these systems must retain explicit rights over their contributions. What we need is a standardized, enforceable system of data contracting, one that allows individuals to knowingly, transparently, and voluntarily contribute data for a limited, mutually agreed-upon window of use. This contract must be clear on scope, duration, value exchange, and termination. And it must treat data ownership as immutable, even during active use. That means: When a contract ends, or if a company violates its terms, the individual's data must, by law, be erased from the model, its training set, and any derivative products. 'Right to be forgotten' must mean what it says. But to be credible, this system must work both ways: This isn't just about ethics. It's about enforceable, mutual accountability. The user experience must be seamless and scalable. The legal backend must be secure. And the result should be a new economic compact—where humans know when they're participating in AI development, and models are kept in their place. ChatGPT Is Changing the Risk Surface. Here's How to Respond. The shift toward AI systems as quasi-participants—not just tools—will reshape legal exposure, data governance, product liability, and customer trust. Whether you're building AI, integrating it into your workflows, or using it to interface with customers, here are five things you should be doing immediately: ChatGPT May Get Privilege. You Should Get the Right to Be Forgotten. This moment isn't just about what AI can do. It's about what your business is letting it do, what it remembers, and who gets access to that memory. Ignore that, and you're not just risking privacy violations, you're risking long-term brand trust and regulatory blowback. At the very least, we need a legal framework that defines how AI memory is governed. Not as a priest, not as a doctor, and not as a partner, but perhaps as a witness. Something that stores information and can be examined when context demands it, with clear boundaries on access, deletion, and use. The public conversation remains focused on privacy. But the fundamental shift is about control. And unless the legal and regulatory frameworks evolve rapidly, the terms of engagement will be set, not by policy or users, but by whoever owns the box. Which is why, in the age of AI, the right to be forgotten may become the most valuable human right we have. Not just because your data could be used against you—but because your identity itself can now be captured, modeled, and monetized in ways that persist beyond your control. Your patterns, preferences, emotional triggers, and psychological fingerprints don't disappear when the session ends. They live on inside a system that never forgets, never sleeps, and never stops optimizing. Without the ability to revoke access to your data, you don't just lose privacy. You lose leverage. You lose the ability to opt out of prediction. You lose control over how you're remembered, represented, and replicated. The right to be forgotten isn't about hiding. It's about sovereignty. And in a world where AI systems like ChatGPT will increasingly shape our choices, our identities, and our outcomes, the ability to walk away may be the last form of freedom that still belongs to you.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Secret Service detail to pay $600K for golf carts and port-a-potties to use at his New Jersey club
The Secret Service is allocating more than $600,000 to rent golf carts and portable toilets for use in Bedminster, New Jersey, the home of President Donald Trump's private country club, according to a review of government procurement data by The Independent. On June 3, the agency signed a pair of definitive contracts with Associates Golf Car Service of Poughkeepsie, New York, and Restroom Resources LLC of Wrightstown, New Jersey, federal records show. The agreement with Associates Golf Car Service Inc., for 'Golf Car Rental and Transportation Services,' is worth a potential $550,930 and runs through June 2, 2026. Restroom Resources's work order for 'portable restroom rentals and services' is worth up to $80,385, runs through May 31, 2026, and comes with a three-year renewal option, for a potential total of $333,801. Taxpayers, as is customary, will be footing both bills. Secret Service agents in golf carts normally ride several holes ahead of and behind Trump when he hits the links, in order to ensure his security. And while it is unclear exactly how the portable restrooms will be used, they are for the convenience of agents on the property and not because they are banned from using the facilities inside, as they were rumored to be at the 5,000 square-foot Washington, D.C. spread rented by First Daughter Ivanka Trump and husband Jared Kushner in 2017. In a email on Monday, a Secret Service spokesperson told The Independent, 'The U.S. Secret Service has contracts in place for portable restrooms and golf cart rentals to support protective operations in Bedminster, New Jersey. The golf carts are used by personnel to move around club property. Secret Service personnel have access to restrooms in club facilities; however, additional restrooms are needed to support the number of personnel onsite. These rentals also allow for restroom access in additional locations on club property and when club facilities are closed such as after business hours.' Messages sent to Associates Golf Car Service Inc. and Restroom Resources went unanswered. In 2019, the Secret Service allocated $95,250 to rent golf carts from Associates Golf Car Service, to be used at Bedminster over a six-month period between May 6 and October 31. It is unclear whether the new rate of $550,930 represents a far larger rental fleet this time around, or if prices have more than doubled in the years since. Golf cart rentals at Associates Golf Car Service range from about $1,000 to $1,400 per month. None of the rental fees are shown going directly to Trump, unlike a July 2018 trip he took to his Trump Turnberry Resort in Scotland, during which the property charged the Secret Service $923 for golf cart rentals. (Trump was accused of overcharging the Secret Service by as much as 300 percent to rent hotel rooms at the Washington, D.C. hotel he owned during his first term.) For its part, Restroom Resources, which serves New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Pennsylvania and Maryland, aims to 'provide the most luxurious portable restroom experience, ensuring comfort, sophistication, and convenience at every event. We believe in enhancing the guest experience with high-end restroom trailers that seamlessly blend style and functionality.' 'At Restroom Resources, we're redefining mobile restroom experiences,' the company's website tells prospective clients. '... We understand that traditional porta potties can be unpleasant – but your guests and team deserve better. That's why we've built our company on exceeding expectations and delivering luxury amenities in every unit.' The initiation fee to join Trump's club in Bedminster sits at about $100,000, according to The Wall Street Journal. Last month, the Somerset County Health Department gave the club's kitchens a food-safety grade of 32 points out of a possible 100, alongside only two other establishments scoring under 40: Hunan Wok in Middlesex Borough and Ponche Suizo in North Plainfield, reported. The club's general manager insisted, without evidence, that the violations were 'politically motivated,' and health inspectors raised the establishment's score to 83 following a return visit in early June. Still, the club was cited for six violations, including two critical ones, such as improperly chilled milk and creamers, weak sanitizer levels, and mops stored in buckets instead of being air-dried. Since his January 20 inauguration, Trump's golf habit has already cost taxpayers more than $53 million, according to tracking site During his first term, Trump's golf habit set back taxpayers a total of $151.5 million, which included security, transportation aboard Air Force 1, meals, and lodging, according to the Government Accountability Office. Solve the daily Crossword
