Illinois AG wins court order supporting libraries, museums, minority-owned businesses
CHICAGO, Ill. (WCIA) — Attorney General Kwame Raoul, in a coalition with 20 other attorneys general, won a court order stopping the Trump administration from dismantling three federal agencies.
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
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Federal judge approves Colorado law banning people under 21 from buying a gun
A federal judge upheld Colorado's restriction on firearms sales requiring buyers to be 21 or older after Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and two people looking to purchase firearms sued Democratic Gov. Jared Polis. Chief U.S. District Judge Philip A. Brimmer agreed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit's decision that age-based requirements for purchase do not fall under the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms. The 10th Circuit and Brimmer agree that the issue falls under a "safe harbor" exclusion, placing it outside the scope of the Constitution. The only exceptions to Colorado's firearm purchase age restriction are for those in the U.S. Military and for peace officers. In both cases, the person must be making the purchase while on duty and is "serving in conformance with the policies" of their respective agency. Supreme Court Declines To Examine Appeals Over Maryland, Rhode Island Gun Control Laws "Governor Polis is committed to making Colorado one of the ten safest states, and common-sense laws encourage responsible gun ownership and keep people safe. For decades in Colorado, you had to be 21 to purchase a handgun, per federal law. The requirement to be 21 was expanded to rifles and shotguns with the signing of SB23-169, and Governor Polis is glad to see the court affirm that Colorado's common sense law does not infringe on Second Amendment rights. Governor Polis is confident this law has and will help keep Coloradans and our communities safe," Polis' Communications Director Conor Cahill said in a statement to Fox News Digital. Brimmer acknowledged that Adrian Pineda and Matthew Newkirk — the two individuals under 21 who sued Polis together with Rocky Mountain Gun Owners — are part of "the people" as written in the Second Amendment. However, he referred to the 10th Circuit's decision, saying it had resolved the case back in 2023, according to Courthouse News Service (CNS). Read On The Fox News App Debate Over Whether To Ban Handgun Sales To Teens Could Soon Head To The Supreme Court The decision in Colorado comes in contrast to one issued by the Supreme Court in 2022 in which justices determined that New York issued unconstitutional requirements for carrying a concealed weapon in public. Then-President Joe Biden said he was "deeply disappointed" by the ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. He said that SCOTUS had "chosen to strike down New York's long-established authority to protect its citizens." "This ruling contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should deeply trouble us all," Biden said in a statement at the time. He went on to reaffirm his commitment to reducing gun violence and making communities safer. Brimmer is also going against a decision made by the New Orleans-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which struck down a federal restriction banning the sale of firearms to anyone below the age of 21. That court held that those aged 18 to 20 are protected under the Second Amendment, according to The Trace, an organization of journalists who report on gun violence in the U.S. "The federal government has presented scant evidence that eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds' firearm rights during the founding-era were restricted in a similar manner to the contemporary federal handgun purchase ban," Judge Edith H. Jones wrote in the opinion. Several states, including New York, Massachusetts, California, Florida, Illinois, Delaware and Vermont have raised the age for purchasing firearms, according to the Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. While some states have limited the age restrictions to handgun purchases, others have applied the restriction to any kind of article source: Federal judge approves Colorado law banning people under 21 from buying a gun
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Hegseth could be ‘on the hook' for hundreds of millions on Qatari jet, says Raskin
The top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee has warned Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that he could be 'on the hook' for hundreds of millions of dollars for having accepted a luxury jet from the Qatari government. In a letter sent Wednesday, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) argued that Hegseth's formal acceptance of the Boeing 747 jetliner last month – a move made so that the Air Force can upgrade its security measures so it may eventually be used as Air Force One – violates the Constitution emoluments clause. The rule bars federal officials from accepting financial benefits from foreign governments without congressional approval. 'I write now to urge and advise you to promptly mitigate these violations—and your own personal legal exposure—by either returning the plane to the Qatari government or promptly seeking Congress's consent to accept it,' Raskin wrote. The Pentagon announced on May 21 that it had officially accepted the 13-year-old luxury jet previously used by the Qatari royal family, a supposed 'free,' gift that could be used to supplement the aging Air Force One fleet, according to President Trump. The transfer has been criticized by U.S. lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, who say it raises ethical and corruption questions in addition to costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars to retrofit the plane into a secure and working Air Force One. Others have focused on the national security risks of such a gift, saying the aircraft would have to be swept for listening devices. Some have worried that in Trump's push to use the plane before he leaves office, the Air Force will rush security upgrades and cut corners on protection systems. A former professor of constitutional law and former ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, Raskin has focused his criticisms on the ethical issues around accepting the Qatari plane, repeatedly arguing that it requires congressional approval. 'The Constitution is perfectly clear: no present 'of any kind whatever' from a foreign state without Congressional permission,' Raskin wrote on X last month after news of the gift broke. Congress has the authority to block federal officials from receiving gifts from foreign governments, as granted in the Constitution, but the government arm has not held any formal vote to accept the plane or not. Democrats largely have been unsuccessful in stopping Trump from accepting the Qatari jet. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) last month attempted to pass a bill that would bar the use of a foreign jet as Air Force One, but that effort failed. Raskin, along with other Democrat lawmakers, have introduced resolutions to condemn the gift but Republicans have blocked them from being considered on the floor. Making matters more complicated, Democrats, given their status as the minority party, can't convene any oversight hearings that would force government officials to testify on the issue, and their colleagues across the aisle have not called any such hearings themselves. In his letter, Raskin says Hegseth is in violation of the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, which could prompt the Attorney General to bring civil action and penalties against him. Under that law, government officials can accept certain gifts up to $480 in value, and they cannot 'request or otherwise encourage the tender of a gift or decoration' from another country. In violating the act, Hegseth can face a penalty 'not to exceed the retail value of the gift improperly solicited or received plus $5,000.' 'In other words, you may be on the hook for $400 million (plus $5,000) even for a jumbo jet that you accepted on behalf of the President but do not get to personally enjoy,' Raskin writes, referring to the cost of a new Boeing 747-8 jet. 'If you truly believe that there is nothing untoward about the President asking for and receiving a $400 million 'flying palace' from a foreign power, then you should let Congress and the President's Republican colleagues vote to approve the transaction,' he adds. 'If you're unwilling to do that, you must return the plane to Qatar.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
In emergency appeal, Trump asks Supreme Court to let him gut Education Department
WASHINGTON − The Trump administration on June 6 asked the Supreme Court to let it dismantle the Education Department and fire hundreds of its workers. President Donald Trump is trying to fulfil his campaign promise to end the Education Department and move school policy to the states. In an emergency appeal, the administration said the court should lift a judge's order blocking Trump from carrying out those moves while they're being challenged by Democratic-led states, school districts and teachers' unions. "The Constitution vests the Executive Branch, not district courts, with the authority to make judgments about how many employees are needed to carry out an agency's statutory functions, and whom they should be," Solicitor General John Sauer told the Supreme Court. U.S. District Judge Myong Joun said the White House's decision to fire more than 1,300 workers in March has prevented the federal government from effectively implementing legally required programs and services. Such changes can't be made without the approval of Congress, which created the department in 1979, Joun ruled. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals backed that decision. The court said the administration provided no evidence to counter Joun's "record-based findings about the disabling impact" of the mass firings and the transfer of some functions to other agencies. "What is at stake in this case, the District Court found, was whether a nearly half-century-old cabinet department would be permitted to carry out its statutorily assigned functions or prevented from doing so by a mass termination of employees aimed at implementing the effective closure of that department," Judge David Barron wrote for the panel of three circuit judges. An executive order Trump signed in March directed Education Secretary Linda McMahon to "facilitate the closure of the Department of Education." Republicans have long accused the federal government of holding too much power over local and state education policy, even though the federal government has no control over school curriculum. McMahon announced roughly half the agency's workforce would be eliminated through a combination of mass layoffs and voluntary buyouts. That would have reduced the staff from 4,133 workers when Trump began his second term in January to 2,183 workers. The administration also wants the Small Business Administration to take over student loans and move special education services to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. More: Trump can't erase the Education Department with an executive order. Here's why. Joun's order blocked the administration from transferring those functions and required the department to reinstate fired workers. The appeals court said Trump doesn't have to have as many Education Department employees as the previous administration but can't cut so many that the agency can't function as Congress intended. The Justice Department told the Supreme Court that the harms to the government from having to rehire the workers as the litigation continues are greater than any harms the challengers said they'll suffer from diminished department services. More: What will happen at my school if Trump closes the Department of Education? The Education Department is legally required to ensure that students and teachers with disabilities are treated fairly and that low-income schools get the resources they need to keep pace with more affluent ones. The agency also issues regulations for colleges to hold them accountable for preparing graduates for well-paying jobs. And it functions like a giant bank, doling out billions of dollars to help people pay for college. Even if the Education Department were reorganized, which would take an act of Congress, its obligations under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 would have to continue elsewhere. The law passed during the Johnson administration requires the government to administer student loan programs, issue grants and ensure that schools receiving federal money don't discriminate against students. Contributing: Zachary Schermele This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump asks Supreme Court to let him gut Education Department
