Idaho AG drops ‘transparency' lawsuit over University of Phoenix deal
Labrador sued the State Board in June 2023 over the way the controversial transaction came about. He accused the State Board of violating Idaho's open meetings law when it negotiated the U of I's planned purchase of the online, for-profit school in private.
He said in a news release Wednesday that the legal battle was about government transparency. Both parties agreed to cover their own litigation costs.
'This case was never about the merits of any particular transaction, but about ensuring government remains open and transparent for all Idahoans,' Labrador said. 'Idaho's Open Meeting Law requires government entities to conduct state business in public meetings with proper notice, ensuring transparency when taxpayer resources and state institutions are involved. The law reflects the principle that government accountability depends on public access to decision-making processes, particularly for transactions of significant scope and financial impact.'
The universities called the proposed $550 million acquisition quits on June 3 after two years of negotiations.
The deal was plagued by ridicule and legal challenges from the start. In December, the Idaho Supreme Court returned a 4-1 victory in Labrador's favor, overturning a lower court ruling that would have OK'd the secret government negotiations, according to the release.
The acquisition would have had Four Three Education, a nonprofit created by the U of I, buy Phoenix from its hedge fund owner, Apollo Global Management.
The U of I spent over $17 million trying to complete the deal, according to Jodi Walker, a spokesperson for the university. By terminating it, Phoenix is expected to fully reimburse the U of I for out-of-pocket expenses it incurred while pursuing the sale.
University of Idaho, University of Phoenix call off $550M acquisition
As Idaho's nursing shortage persists, a private Christian university could help
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
6 hours ago
- Newsweek
Full List of Supreme Court Cases to Be Heard This Coming Fall Term
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Supreme Court has released its October and November oral argument calendars for the 2025 term. Why It Matters The Supreme Court will begin its 2025 term on October 6. The justices are expected to hear several cases about issues that have drawn public interest, including redistricting and conversion therapy bans. A general overall exterior view of the Supreme Court, Sunday, Jan. 1, 2023, in Washington. A general overall exterior view of the Supreme Court, Sunday, Jan. 1, 2023, in Washington. Aaron M. Sprecher via AP Villareal v. Texas Oral arguments in Villareal v. Texas are scheduled for October 6. The case presents the question of whether a court violates a defendant's right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and counsel from discussing the defendant's testimony during an overnight recess. The petitioner, David Asa Villareal, was convicted of murder and sentenced to 60 years in prison. Villareal testified during the trial. On the first day of his testimony, the court declared a recess and dismissed the jury due to a previously scheduled administrative commitment. The court instructed Villarreal and his attorneys not to discuss his testimony during the 24-hour recess. "When a defendant confers with his attorney, the defendant's testimony permeates every aspect of counsel's advice," attorneys for Villareal wrote in a petition for a writ of certiorari. "There is no way to separate discussions of testimony from discussions of trial strategy. Prohibiting counsel from discussing the defendant's testimony during an overnight recess is tantamount to preventing counsel from doing his or her job." Berk v. Choy The justices will also hear oral arguments in Berk v. Choy on October 6. The question presented in this case is whether a state law requiring the dismissal of a complaint if it is not accompanied by an expert affidavit may apply in federal court. Chiles v. Salazar The Court will hear arguments in Chiles v. Salazar on October 7. The justices will consider whether a Colorado state law banning conversion therapy for minors by mental health counselors violates free speech rights. The petitioner, Kaley Chiles, is a licensed counselor. "A practicing Christian, Chiles believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God's design, including their biological sex," attorneys for Chiles wrote in a petition for a writ of certiorari. "Many of her clients seek her counsel precisely because they believe that their faith and their relationship with God establishes the foundation upon which to understand their identity and desires. But Colorado bans these consensual conversations based on the viewpoints they express." Attorneys for the respondents said legal precedent holds that the First Amendment permits states to regulate the practice of conversion therapy, "like other unsafe and ineffective health care treatments, even when those treatments involve speech." Barrett v. United States Oral arguments in Barrett v. United States are scheduled for October 7. The petitioner, Dwayne Barrett, was convicted of aiding a robbery by driving the codefendant to the scene, aiding the use of a gun during that robbery, a "crime of violence," and aiding the use of a gun used to kill during a "crime of violence." The justices will consider whether Barrett's sentencing on two charges violated the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. Bost v. Illinois Board of Elections The justices are scheduled to hear oral arguments in Bost v. Illinois Board of Elections on October 8. One petitioner in this case is Representative Mike Bost, a Republican from Illinois. The Court will consider whether the petitioners have presented sufficient factual allegations to challenge state time, place and manner regulations concerning federal elections. Postal Service v. Konan Oral arguments in Postal Service v. Konan are scheduled for October 8. The case centers around an exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act barring lawsuits for claims arising out of the "loss" or "miscarriage" of "letters or postal matter." The justices will consider whether the exception applies to claims that arise from a USPS employee's intentional failure to deliver mail to a designated address. Bowe v. United States The Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Bowe v. United States on October 14. The case centers around procedural questions related to the application of the federal laws governing post-conviction relief for federal prisoners. Ellingburg v. United States Oral arguments in Ellingburg v. United States are scheduled for October 14. The Court will consider whether a restitution order, imposed as part of a criminal sentence, violates a clause of the Constitution barring laws that retroactively increase the punishment for a crime or criminalize conduct that was legal when it occurred. Louisiana v. Callais Louisiana v. Callais, a case challenging Louisiana's congressional map, is set for reargument on October 15. The justices first heard arguments in the redistricting case earlier this year. The Court will consider whether the map is racially gerrymandered to create majority-minority districts and whether the new districts violate the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The case was consolidated with Robinson v. Callais. Case v. Montana The Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Case v. Montana on October 15. The justices will consider whether law enforcement can enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring. Petitioner William Trevor Case alleges that law enforcement entered his home without a warrant and seized evidence used to prosecute Case for a felony. Case's ex-girlfriend had previously called law enforcement and said Case had threatened suicide during an argument over the phone. Rico v. United States Oral arguments in Rico v. United States are scheduled for November 3. The Court will consider whether the fugitive-tolling doctrine applies in the context of supervised release. Petitioner Isabel Rico had her supervised release revoked by a court because she had been deemed a fugitive by a probation office in 2018. Hencely v. Fluor Corporation The Court is scheduled to hear arguments in Hencely v. Fluor Corporation on November 3. The justices will consider whether a member of the U.S. armed forces who was injured in a military base bombing can sue the government contractor who employed the bomber. Hamm v. Smith The Court will hear arguments in Hamm v. Smith on November 4. The question presented is whether and how courts should assess a claim by a defendant that he cannot be executed because he is intellectually disabled. The Alabama Department of Corrections argues that Joseph Smith is not intellectually disabled, citing multiple IQ tests where he scored higher than the level required to prove intellectual disability under the law. The Department of Corrections is asking the Court to reverse a lower court's decision overturning Smith's sentence. Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist Oral arguments in Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist are scheduled for November 4. The case asks whether a district court's final judgment must be vacated when an appeals court later determines that it erroneously dismissed a party from the case when it was transferred to federal court. Coney Island Auto Parts, Inc. v. Burton The justices will hear oral arguments in Coney Island Auto Parts, Inc. v. Burton on November 5. Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety Oral arguments in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety are set for November 10. The Court will consider whether an inmate can file a lawsuit against a government official for violations of a federal law that protects the religious rights of prisoners, rather than the government entity that employs the official. Damon Landor, the petitioner, is a practicing Rastafarian. He alleges that he was held down by two prison guards while his head was shaved. Landor sued several officials and the Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety. A district court found that the law does not allow for damages against individual state officials. The GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal The Court is expected to hear arguments in The GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal on November 10. Fernandez v. United States The justices will hear arguments in Fernandez v. United States on November 12. The Court will consider whether "extraordinary and compelling reasons" that may justify a lower sentence can also be cited as reasons to vacate a sentence in a motion for post-conviction relief. Rutherford v. United States Oral arguments in Rutherford v. United States are scheduled for November 12. The case has been consolidated with Carter v. United States. The case also relates to "extraordinary and compelling reasons" allowing for a reduced sentence. The justices will consider whether a district court can address disparities created by the First Step Act's prospective changes in sentencing law when deciding if "extraordinary and compelling reasons" warrant a sentencing reduction. Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@
Business Wire
10 hours ago
- Business Wire
Salem Media Group has Released its Second Quarter 2025 Quarterly Report
CAMARILLO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Salem Media Group, Inc. (OTCQX: SALM) announced today its second quarter 2025 Quarterly Report has been posted on its investor relations website. Salem Media Group has Released its Second Quarter 2025 Quarterly Report Share About Salem Media Group Salem Media Group is America's premier multimedia company specializing in Christian and conservative content. Through its national radio network, digital platforms, and publishing brands, Salem reaches millions daily with powerful content that drives the national conversation. Learn more at
Axios
19 hours ago
- Axios
MAGA rails against "pothead" culture as Trump weighs weed reform
Prominent MAGA leaders are urging President Trump to back off his plans to review federal restrictions on marijuana, warning of a one-way ticket to societal ruin. Why it matters: Reclassifying marijuana as a Schedule III drug would open the door to expanded research and deliver a major boost to the legal cannabis industry, which is currently constrained by a patchwork of state laws. As a Schedule 1 drug, marijuana is grouped alongside heroin and LSD as "drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse." But many of Trump's allies are vehemently opposed to easing federal restrictions — portraying marijuana as a gateway to a smelly, lazy, dirty society. Driving the news: Trump confirmed reports that he was considering reclassifying marijuana in the next few weeks, though he seemed torn between medical benefits and other side effects. "Medical, for pain and various things, I've heard some pretty good things, but for other things, I've heard some pretty bad things," he told reporters Monday. Trump also said in 2024 that he would vote for a Florida amendment that would legalize marijuana throughout the state. The amendment ultimately failed. What they're saying: MAGA luminaries sounded the alarm after the Wall Street Journal reported on Trump's discussions with the cannabis industry — which has donated millions to his political groups — about possible reclassification. "No country of potheads has ever thrived, or ever achieved anything at all. Every city that legalized it became an even bigger sh*thole basically overnight," The Daily Wire's Matt Walsh posted. "America deserves better, our kids deserve better, I don't want to have to be smelling weed anytime I take my kids anywhere in a city or a national park," MAGA podcaster Jack Posobiec said on his podcast Monday. Between the lines: The criticisms may echo old-school "Reefer Madness" rhetoric, but they also offer a revealing window into how MAGA defines virtue, masculinity and the "ideal" society. MAGA is fixated on "Western civilization," casting the U.S. as the successor to ancient European civilizations who built historic empires on the foundation of hard work, meritocracy and the rule of law. It also has a rigid definition of masculinity and traditional gender roles, with men as stoic breadwinners who reject indulgence in favor of a relentless grind. In that context, the image of a bong-ripping couch potato is un-American — a departure from the whiskey-and-cigar era of 1950s mad men that MAGA reveres. The intrigue: There are partisan connotations too. Weed is the "liberal intoxicant of choice," while tobacco and alcohol are more conservative-coded, argues podcaster Michael Knowles. "We're all for cultivating virtue, either stoic or Christian, but it doesn't mean we don't like pleasure. It's just that we prefer traditional pleasures," Knowles told Axios. "The left is more comfortable just kind of vegging out, but they should not be, because sloth is bad for the individual and for society," he added. Reality check: Those broad characterizations and stereotypes aren't grounded in data. Both substances can be abused. The other side: Not all of MAGA is on the same page. For a movement with a strong libertarian streak and deep skepticism of Big Pharma, reclassifying marijuana has clear appeal — especially as a non-traditional treatment for PTSD and other medical conditions.
