Illinois AG wins court order supporting libraries, museums, minority-owned businesses
In April, Raoul joined this coalition in suing the administration to stop the implementation of an executive order that would dismantle the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS). These three agencies provide services and funding supporting public libraries, museums, workers and minority-owned businesses across the country.
Brother answers burning question: Is Pope Leo XIV a Chicago White Sox or Cubs fan?
The U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island issued an order on Tuesday granting the states' request for a preliminary injunction to stop the administration from implementing the order and protecting these agencies.
'The administration's actions jeopardize critical library and museum programs across the state. These programs help residents of rural communities and underserved youth access educational opportunities and technology,' Raoul said. 'I am proud to stand with my fellow attorneys general to stop the unconstitutional attempt to dismantle agencies created by Congress.'
This executive order is the administration's most recent attempt to dismantle federal agencies in defiance of Congress. Raoul and the coalition are seeking to stop the dismantling of the three agencies targeted in the administration's executive order:
The IMLS, which supports libraries and museums across the nation through grantmaking, research and development
The MBDA, which promotes the growth and inclusion of minority-owned businesses through federal financial assistance programs
The FMCS, which promotes the resolution of labor disputes
Illinois' gas tax goes up on July 1st. Here's by how much:
According to Raoul, as the coalition continues to assert in the lawsuit, dismantling these agencies will hurt communities throughout Illinois and across the nation that rely on them to provide important services to the public. These include funding for libraries, promoting minority-owned businesses and protecting workers' rights.
The preliminary injunction that has been granted halts the executive order as it applies to IMLS, MBDA and FMCS. The court also found that the states had established a 'strong likelihood of success' on their claims that the order violates the Administrative Procedure Act and disregards the Constitution by attempting to dismantle agencies that Congress both established and funded by law.
Attorneys general from the following states joined Raoul in this coalition:
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Nevada
New Jersey
New York
New Mexico
Oregon
Rhode Island
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
10 hours ago
- The Hill
Texas GOP looks to make California enforce arrest warrants amid redistricting battle
Texas GOP officials on Saturday upped their calls for Democrats who fled the state for California to be arrested, unseated and brought back to the Lone Star State amid a redistricting battle. Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) and Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows (R) filed a legal complaint in California urging local law enforcement to act on arrest warrants issued by the Texas statehouse for their colleagues who left the state ahead of a controversial redistricting vote. 'Texans are fed up with lawmakers who refuse to do their jobs and instead run away to states like California to exploit radical governors' broken political systems as a shield,' Paxton said in a Saturday statement. '[California Gov.] Gavin Newsom [(D)] may be comfortable with lawlessness and the protection of corrupt legislators, but Texas will not tolerate elected officials who defy the Constitution for political theater,' he added. Burrows said the legislature would not be able to conduct votes on disaster-relief funding with absent members and echoed Paxton's demand for lawmakers to be returned. The two have also encouraged Gov. JB Pritzker (D-Ill.) to force lawmakers to vacate his state. Texas Democrats fled on Sunday to blue states, including California, Illinois, New York and New Jersey, to delay a statehouse vote that would give Republicans five additional seats in Congress. Without a quorum, or the proper number of lawmakers present to hold a vote, legislation cannot be passed. The departure of state Democrats has made national news and President Trump has weighed in, suggesting the FBI 'may have to' get involved in returning them. The president has also said Republicans are 'entitled' to more seats in Congress, where the party holds a slim majority in the House. State officials in California on Friday announced it would hold a special election to redraw voting maps this upcoming November.
The Hill
10 hours ago
- The Hill
Abolish the monarchy at the Federal Reserve
With the spotlight now focused on the Federal Reserve's leadership, there have been some dire warnings about potential threats to the Fed's 'independence.' However, such statements have barely mentioned the need for democratic accountability and have made no reference whatsoever to the U.S. Constitution. Every student learns that our Constitution established three branches of the government: executive, legislative and judicial. It is simply not permissible for the Fed to be a fully independent 'fourth branch.' The Constitution specifically gave Congress the duty to 'regulate the value' of money, and Congress has delegated that responsibility to the Fed. Thus, Congress must serve as the Fed's boss. Under current law, however, the Fed has such broad powers that it effectively functions like an independent monarchy instead of an agency of Congress. Indeed, the Fed's powers exceed those of every other federal agency and every other major central bank. Budget: Unlike other agencies, the Fed has sole authority to determine the budget for its buildings and operations. By contrast, other major central banks submit their budgets for approval by an oversight body (for example, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom). Asset purchases: Over the past two decades, the Fed's balance sheet has expanded by 10 times. The Fed's purchases in 2020-21 incurred huge interest rate risks that are now costing taxpayers more than $1 trillion. Debt issuance: The Fed is uniquely authorized to borrow funds from the public to finance its operating losses. The Constitution assigns Congress with the duty to oversee the nation's debt, but the Fed's obligations are exempted from the congressional debt ceiling. Salaries: The Fed determines the compensation of its staff, many of whom are paid more than the president. In fact, the salaries of the top Fed staff are roughly twice that of their counterparts at other federal departments and agencies. Buildings: The Fed is now completing a $3.1 billion upgrade of three buildings used by about 2,400 Fed staff, and its headquarters will soon be one of the most expensive structures in the world. By contrast, the European Central Bank is now in the process of downsizing its headquarters in Frankfurt to two buildings instead of three. External Reviews: The Government Accountability Office conducts comprehensive reviews of every other federal agency but can only conduct limited reviews of specific Fed operations. Moreover, The Fed's inspector general is an employee appointed by the Fed chair who works 'under the authority, direction, and control' of the Fed chair on all policy-related matters.. In contrast, the Bank of England's performance is reviewed by an Independent Evaluation Office and by the U.K. National Audit Office, while the European Central Bank's performance is reviewed by the European Court of Auditors. The Fed's internal governance has shifted markedly away from its intended design as a commission composed of an array of individually accountable experts. For nearly a century, the head of each regional Federal Reserve Bank was selected by its board of directors, with 'light touch' oversight from the Federal Reserve Board in Washington D.C. Since 2015, however, the Fed Board has been directly involved in all stages of selecting new Fed Bank presidents, who are now viewed as ' subordinates ' of the Fed Board. The Fed Board has seven members with staggered terms — a design in which the Fed chair would be 'first among equals,' similar to the role of the chief justice of the Supreme Court. In practice, however, the Fed chair has a dominant role as its active executive officer, whereas the other board members have non-executive roles. Thus, the staff are solely accountable to the Fed chair, who determines what information will be shared with the rest of the Fed Board. For example, in 2023 the Fed published a key report about the Silicon Valley Bank failure even though that report had never been shown to several Fed Board members prior to its publication. Of course, the Fed is not literally a monarchy, but its characteristics are eerily similar to those of a sovereign entity. And the Fed's lack of transparency and accountability are eroding its credibility and undermining its effectiveness in carrying out its mission. Thus, Congress should now take immediate steps to fulfill its constitutional duty to serve as the Fed's boss. The Fed's budget should be incorporated into the federal budget. The Fed should have a presidentially-appointed inspector general just like at every other major federal agency, and GAO should be authorized to conduct comprehensive reviews of the Fed's programs and operations. And a blue-ribbon commission should examine the Fed's institutional structure and present a specific set of recommendations to be considered by Congress.
New York Times
14 hours ago
- New York Times
The Dred Scott Dissent Lincoln Loved
A few weeks ago, I wrote a column that included a brief discussion of the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, the 1857 case that both invalidated the Missouri Compromise and closed the door to Black citizenship in the United States — until it was effectively overturned by the outcome of the Civil War and officially overturned by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. To write about Dred Scott meant I had to read — that is, reread — Chief Justice Roger Taney's infamous opinion for the court, in which he tried to root his anti-Black constitutional vision in the nation's history. And while I did not write about it in the column, I also read the major dissent in the case, written by Justice Benjamin Curtis. Curtis had a tumultuous time on the court. Nominated by President Millard Fillmore in 1851 to replace Levi Woodbury, the 41-year-old Curtis was the first and only Whig appointee to the court. A Boston-based litigator and one-time state legislator, Curtis came to Washington with a stamp of approval from none other than Daniel Webster. Curtis made an immediate mark on the court with his majority opinion in Cooley v. Board of Wardens, in which he charted a middle course between two opposing views of the Commerce Clause. The case, which concerned a Pennsylvania law that levied a fine on vessels entering the Philadelphia harbor without a local pilot, asked whether the Commerce Clause gave Congress exclusive authority over interstate commerce — precluding any state action whatsoever — or whether states could pass laws affecting interstate commerce as long as they did not conflict with existing federal statutes. Curtis's solution was to split the difference. 'Whatever subjects of this power are in their nature national, or admit only of one uniform system or plan of regulation, may justly be said to be of such a nature as to require exclusive legislation by Congress,' he wrote. But when the subject is 'local and not national' regulation, it 'should be left to the legislation of the states' until 'Congress should find it necessary to exert its power.' Although, as the legal scholar Alison LaCroix notes in 'The Interbellum Constitution,' it would prove difficult to draw the line between the local and the national on questions of commerce, Curtis's opinion would stand with John Marshall's in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) as one of the defining Commerce Clause decisions of the 19th century. It was with this success to his name that Curtis leaped into the dispute over Dred Scott's status as a free man and citizen. He was one of two justices, along with John McLean of Ohio, who wanted to resolve the case in favor of Scott's claim to citizenship and in support of the idea that Congress had the power to regulate slavery in the territories. The majority of the court joined Taney's opinion rejecting Scott's claim to freedom, writing Black Americans out of the national community and invalidating the Missouri Compromise of 1820 because of its attempt to limit the introduction of slavery to the territories. But Curtis's dissent was not some stray afterthought. Just the opposite: It was a comprehensive attack on Taney's theory of the case, and it moved the public debate in the wake of its publication. Both the Republican Party and the antislavery press seized on Curtis's opinion in its attacks on Taney, and Abraham Lincoln, in a speech that summer in Springfield, Ill., relied on the dissent to rebuff Stephen Douglas's view that the Declaration of Independence 'referred to the white race alone.' Curtis begins by taking aim at Taney's decision to rule on Scott's claim to citizenship and the question of the Missouri Compromise. Neither issue, he argued, was 'legitimately' before the court and neither was 'within the scope of the judicial power of the majority of the court' to decide. In Curtis's view, the sole judgment of the court was that 'the case is to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction' because Scott was not a citizen of Missouri. Everything beyond this was not relevant to the case itself and, in Curtis's view, not binding law. You'll note that other political actors picked up on this move. Lincoln, for instance, insisted that the court had not actually settled the question. 'We think the Dred Scott decision is erroneous,' he said in Springfield. 'We know the court that made it has often overruled its own decisions, and we shall do what we can to have it to overrule this.' Having criticized Taney and the majority's decision to decide extraneous questions of constitutional law, Curtis makes the most important argument of his dissent: that Taney is wrong on the facts of citizenship. Asking 'whether any person of African descent, whose ancestors were sold as slaves in the United States, can be a citizen of the United States,' Curtis answered in the affirmative. He pointed out that five states — New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and North Carolina — recognized free Black Americans as citizens under the Articles of Confederation. He noted that these states also permitted free Blacks to vote, which he viewed as 'decisive evidence of citizenship.' Curtis then asks whether the federal Constitution, which superseded the Articles, deprived either those free Blacks or their descendants of citizenship. He notes that the language, 'a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution,' would appear to be inclusive of free Backs. And so, he concludes, I can find nothing in the Constitution which, proprio vigore [on its own], deprives of their citizenship any class of persons who were citizens of the United States at the time of its adoption, or who should be native-born citizens of any State after its adoption, nor any power enabling Congress to disfranchise persons born on the soil of any State, and entitled to citizenship of such State by its Constitution and laws. And my opinion is that, under the Constitution of the United States, every free person born on the soil of a State, who is a citizen of that State by force of its Constitution or laws, is also a citizen of the United States. The idea that the Constitution was somehow made 'exclusively for the white race,' Curtis writes, was 'not only an assumption not warranted by anything in the Constitution, but contradicted by its opening declaration, that it was ordained and established by the people of the United States, for themselves and their posterity.' As for Taney's claim that the founders did not mean to include Black Americans in the Declaration of Independence, Curtis thought this was wrong as well. My own opinion is that a calm comparison of these assertions of universal abstract truths, and of their own individual opinions and acts, would not leave these men under any reproach of inconsistency; that the great truths they asserted on that solemn occasion, they were ready and anxious to make effectual, wherever a necessary regard to circumstances, which no statesman can disregard without producing more evil than good, would allow; and that it would not be just to them, nor true in itself, to allege that they intended to say that the Creator of all men had endowed the white race, exclusively, with the great natural rights which the Declaration of Independence asserts. Now, Curtis did not hold the expansive view of American citizenship that Republicans would codify into the Constitution after the Civil War with the 14th Amendment. He did not think that birth automatically made one a citizen of the United States; like many jurists of his generation, he thought that state citizenship governed national citizenship. It was his view that 'it is left to each State to determine what free persons, born within its limits, shall be citizens of such State, and thereby be citizens of the United States.' States could deny citizenship to whomever they liked, Curtis argued. States could also determine what rights a person had within their borders. In his view, the only thing the Constitution required, with its 'privileges and immunities' clause, was that states treat the citizens of other states no worse than their own. And yet, even with its highly limited vision of citizenship — one that still allowed for a great deal of exclusion and disenfranchisement — Curtis's dissent still stood out for his strong and explicit repudiation of both racial qualifications for citizenship and racial distinctions in citizenship. 'Color,' he wrote, 'is not a necessary qualification for citizenship under the Constitution of the United States.' I mentioned earlier that Curtis had a tumultuous time on the Supreme Court, and it had everything to do with this dissent. Soon after the court announced its decision according to one source, Curtis sent a copy of his dissent to a Boston newspaper, where it was read and published before the release of the other opinions, including Taney's. The chief justice was infuriated by this and went on to revise his opinion in response to Curtis's dissent. This also began a period of bitter antagonism between the two men, which led to Curtis leaving the court later that year, in September. Benjamin Curtis was neither an abolitionist nor a great egalitarian. He was, in most respects, a man of his time, which makes it all the more striking that he could see a truth that some Americans, in our time, are eager to deny: Our Constitution, and our political community, includes nothing less than the whole people. What I Wrote I haven't sent a newsletter in a few weeks, so here are my two most recent columns. I closed out July with a piece on the antebellum echoes of Vice President JD Vance's vision of American citizenship and American identity: Vance sees the egalitarian ideals of our founding documents but says, as Taney did, that we must look elsewhere for our vision of American citizenship. And that elsewhere is your heritage — your connection to the soil and to the dead. And this week, I wrote about the importance of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, whether or not it survives the machinations of this Supreme Court. If by American democracy we mean a pluralistic, multiracial society of political and social equals, then American democracy as we know it began with the signing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 60 years ago today. I also joined my colleagues on a few episodes of The Opinions podcast: one with Michelle Cottle and Michelle Goldberg, as well as one with Cottle and Steve Rattner. Now Reading Nicole Hemmer on the heterodox 'free speech' movement as a right-wing political project for Boston Review. Samantha Hancox-Li on hierarchy, conservative ideology and sexual abuse for Liberal Currents. Marisa Kabas on the starvation in Gaza for The Handbasket. M.Z. Adnan on Sakir Khader's photos of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank for The New Yorker. Jackson Lears on the legacy of the war on terror for The London Review of Books. Photos of the Week I have two for you this weekend. First, a photo of a derelict hotel on Afton Mountain outside Waynesboro, Va. And second, a photo of the Brooklyn Bridge that I took during a brief stay in New York. Now Eating: Sweet and Spicy Summer Fruit Salad I have no comment other than that this is delicious. A perfect showcase for summer fruit and produce. The recipe comes from New York Times Cooking. Ingredients 2 tablespoons mild-tasting olive oil 1 ½ tablespoons store-bought or homemade chile crisp 1 tablespoon red wine vinegar 1 tablespoon sugar 1 ½ pounds stone fruit, such as plums, pluots, cherries, nectarines or peaches, or a combination 10 ounces cherry tomatoes Salt ¾ cup basil leaves, lightly packed Directions In a large bowl, whisk together the oil, chile crisp, vinegar and sugar. Pit the stone fruit and cut the larger fruit into ½-inch wedges, then cut each wedge into ½-inch pieces. Halve the cherries, if using. Place the fruit in the vinaigrette bowl. Cut the tomatoes in half, add to the bowl, season with salt and toss very well. Taste and adjust vinaigrette seasonings as desired. (This salad can be made up to a day ahead and stored in an airtight container in the fridge.) When ready to serve, cut or tear the basil into small pieces, add to the bowl and toss everything well to combine.
