Amy Coney Barrett Decision Gives Libs Win in Shock SCOTUS Ruling
Oklahoma will not be able to use government money to fund a Catholic charter school, the Supreme Court ruled after Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case.
In Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, the Supreme Court rejected the proposal for St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School to receive direct government funding in a 4-4 split ruling on Thursday. In instances where the justices are evenly split, the lower court ruling—in this case, the Oklahoma Supreme Court—stands.
'The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court,' the one-page ruling simply said. It did not note how each justice had voted.
The lower court ruled that plans to open the nation's first-ever government-funded religious charter school were prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the government from establishing a religion or favoring one faith over another. While the split means the lower-court ruling stands, it does not set a precedent for other courts across the country to follow.
It was not immediately clear why Justice Coney Barrett—whom President Donald Trump appointed in 2020—recused herself from the case, which meant she did not take part in oral arguments or the final ruling.
The New York Times speculated that Coney Barrett's decision could have stemmed from her close relationship with Nicole Stelle Garnett, who was previously an adviser for the Oklahoma school.
Coney Barrett and Garnett worked together at the Supreme Court in the 1990s before becoming colleagues at Notre Dame Law School.
Coney Barrett has fallen out of the MAGA crowd in recent months after siding with her liberal counterparts in some high-profile cases.
In one of those decisions in March, she sided with the court's liberal wing to block the White House's effort to freeze almost $2 billion in foreign aid.
The decision Thursday prompted some MAGA supporters to label Coney Barrett a 'DEI pick,' referring to 'diversity, equity, and inclusion.'
MAGA influencer Mike Cernovich wrote: 'She is evil, chosen solely because she checked identity politics boxes... Another DEI hire. It always ends badly.'
The proposed St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School was set to be run by the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa. It would have been the first school to teach Catholicism to students while receiving taxpayer funds.
The original proposal for the school was approved in June 2023; Oklahoma's Statewide Virtual Charter School Board voted to approve the school in a tight 3-2 ballot after a nearly three-hour meeting.
But the state's attorney general, Gentner Drummond, sued over the decision in a bid to prevent the school from opening.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Donald Trump's Controversial Pardons Make Some Republicans Squirm
WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump's pardons of white-collar criminals whosupport his presidency and donate to his campaigns stoked plenty of outrage from Democrats and former law enforcement officials last week. Now, even some Republicans are signaling their discomfort with his decisions to grant clemency ― and the way he's going about it. 'I think that when the president pardons someone, they need to carefully explain why injustice was done,' Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told HuffPost. 'And I think pardons should be rare, and President Trump likes pardons much more than I do.'In recent weeks, Trump has pardoned a former Virginia sheriff who was convicted of trying to sell deputy badges, a Las Vegas politician who stole money intended for a memorial dedicated to a fallen police officer, a tax cheat whose mother raised millions of dollars for Republican political campaigns, and a pair of reality television stars who were convicted of bank fraud and tax evasion. The pardons appear to have been politically motivated, a reward for MAGA die-hards who stood with Trump and his movement. 'No MAGA left behind,' Ed Martin, the president's controversial new pardon attorney, wrote in a social media post last month. Trump also shocked many Republicans when he pardoned hundreds of Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol rioters who were convicted of assaulting or interfering with police officers, roughly 1,000 nonviolent offenders and around 200 people accused of assaulting police. A number of those pardoned have since been rearrested for other alleged crimes. 'On its face, you got to be pretty careful,' Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), another Senate Judiciary Committee member, said of Trump's latest pardons. 'I haven't looked at the current ones, but I think I'm pretty well staked out on about two or three hundred of Jan. 6 people who never should have been pardoned.' Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said the 'best approach' for issuing pardons is to follow a process and make decisions on clemency requests after a recommendation from a parole board or the Department of Justice. The president's pardon power under the U.S. Constitution is broad and completely unchecked. Presidents aren't bound to go through a certain process ― though some follow DOJ guidelines more than others ― and they're free to pardon whomever, no matter the crime. Some of President Joe Biden's pardons also drew outrage ― including for his son Hunter Biden. 'The only way you're going to fix it or change it would be, I think, through a constitutional amendment, and that would take a long time to do,' Rounds said. 'I think just the American people being aware of it is an important part of this discussion. I don't know that you're going to fix it as much as bring attention to it.' Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, dismissed a question about Trump's pardons by pointing to controversial pardons issued by President Bill Clinton in the 1990s. 'There's no sense of making any comments about the president's pardons because it's totally his own decision ― any president in the United States,' Grassley said. 'And nobody asked me about the 2,500 pardons that [Bill] Clinton gave, and so I'm not going to make any comments on pardons that Trump makes.' Trump, meanwhile, seems far more interested in probing his predecessor's pardons. On Wednesday, the president directed his administration to investigate Biden's actions as president, accusing his aides of concealing his 'cognitive decline' and casting doubts on the legitimacy of his use of the autopen to sign pardons and other documents. The order followed weeks of inquiries by Republican lawmakers into Biden's mental and physical health as president following the release of a new book chronicling the former president's 'decline, its cover-up and his disastrous choice to run again.' Biden, however, denied the accusations from Trump in a statement Wednesday: 'Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency. I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn't is ridiculous and false.'
Business Wire
33 minutes ago
- Business Wire
Lieff Cabraser & Farella Braun + Martel Announce That University of California Researchers Have Filed a Class Action Lawsuit Against the Trump Administration for the Illegal and Unconstitutional Termination of Critical Research Grants
SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Lieff Cabraser & Farella Braun + Martel Announce that a group of six University of California faculty and other researchers have filed a class action in federal court against the Trump Administration on behalf of all UC researchers whose previously approved agency grants were terminated pursuant to Executive Orders or other directives of President Trump, as implemented through the Department of Government Efficiency ('DOGE'). University of California Researchers File Class Action Suit Against Trump Administration for Illegal & Unconstitutional Termination of Critical Research Grants Plaintiffs seek a declaration that these grant terminations violate the constitutional principle of separation of powers, the First Amendment guarantee of free speech, and the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process, as well as statutes that govern agencies' missions and grantmaking and the Administrative Procedure Act. As detailed in the Complaint, these abrupt cancellations of already awarded grants 'ignored or contradicted the purposes for which Congress created the granting agencies and appropriated funds, and dispensed with the regular procedures and due process afforded grantees under the Administrative Procedure Act, in implementing the Trump Administration's political 'cost-cutting' agenda and ideological purity campaign.' According to UC Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, a leading constitutional law scholar and co-counsel on the case, 'President Trump and DOGE have arbitrarily cut off funding to researchers throughout the University of California system in clear violation of the Constitution and federal laws. There has not been a semblance of due process or compliance with the procedures required by federal statutes and regulations. This has caused great harm to a large number of faculty and other researchers and the UC research enterprise as a whole, with potentially grave consequences to everyone in society who benefits from the research in a myriad of disciplines." As described by Plaintiff Dr. Neeta Thakur, a pulmonary and critical care specialist at UCSF, 'The EPA has abruptly terminated a three-year grant that was supporting research on how wildfire smoke affects the lungs, heart, and brain of all Californians. My colleagues and I at UCSF and UC Berkeley have worked on this important project for two years, and its sudden end — communicated through a simple form letter — puts our progress in danger. This decision disrupts our ongoing work with community-based organizations and stops us from generating life-saving information designed to improve public health and protect the well-being of all Californians, especially those living in at-risk communities.' Plaintiff Jedda Foreman, the Director of the Center for Environmental Learning at the Lawrence Hall of Science at UC Berkeley, explains, 'My team and I at the Lawrence Hall of Science earned NSF grants to make science education more accessible to all learners. Instilling a love of science is critical to envisioning and creating a better future for us all. In one day, we lost two projects, and nearly 75% of our funding, because of terminations by NSF. A week later, NSF terminated yet another one of our projects. These terminations haven't just affected our team, but also our longtime community partners and thousands of students across the United States.' These are just two of hundreds of examples of the damage wrought by the Trump Administration's illegal and unconstitutional terminations. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco, seeks a return to the pre-Trump Administration process of orderly grantmaking that aligns with congressionally authorized purposes, and affords due process to grant-funded researchers. Plaintiffs seek, for themselves and the class of UC researchers who have suffered unlawful grant terminations, an injunction restoring their lost funding, providing them sufficient time to complete the work for which their grants were originally approved, and preventing further illegal grant terminations. Plaintiffs will be filing a motion for a temporary restraining order on June 5, 2025. The case, No. 3:25-cv-4737, is assigned to the Honorable Rita F. Lin. Background on the Lawsuit Each year, researchers in the UC system receive hundreds of millions of dollars in grants from the full spectrum of federal agencies, ranging from the Environmental Protection Agency, to the National Science Foundation, to the National Institutes of Health. These grants fund the production of new knowledge and fuel the development of discoveries that greatly benefit society at large. The grants have also been key to the innovation that has consistently earned the UC system pride of place among research institutions, including first place in the list of universities with the most utility patents. They have also made the UC Berkeley campus the number one ranked public research in institution in the world for nine of the past ten years. Before President Trump took office, federal grantmaking proceeded under the authority of Congress, which appropriated taxpayer funds for specific public purposes. For decades, agencies carried out these statutory directives and observed due process in making, renewing, and (only seldom) terminating grants. They each adhered to their own grant regulations and followed Administrative Procedure Act processes when modifying such regulations. On the rare occasions when agencies terminated grants, they did so pursuant to predictable, regularized processes and terminated grants only for reasons stated in the regulations. All of this changed abruptly on January 20, 2025 (Inauguration Day). After January 20, 2025, Defendants Donald J. Trump and DOGE, through a flurry of Executive Orders and other directives, commanded the Federal Agency Defendants to terminate scores of previously awarded research grants. As the Complaint notes, the 'abrupt, wholesale, and unilateral termination of these grants has violated the Constitution's bedrock principle of separation of powers and its guarantees of freedom of speech and due process; flouted the Impoundment Control Act limits on the Executive's ability to withhold or redirect congressionally appropriated money; ignored statutory requirements that agencies fulfill their substantive missions and fund congressionally specified activities; contravened agency-specific grant-making regulations that cannot by law be revised on an abrupt, unexplained, chaotic basis; and violated the Administrative Procedure Act through this arbitrary, capricious, and ultra vires conduct.' As further detailed in the Complaint, grounds the agencies have offered for such terminations were spurious. In some cases, agency correspondence to grantees asserted that grant termination would reduce public costs and promote government efficiency, although no evidence was provided to support this claim. In other cases, agency communications made it clear that grants were being terminated to further Defendant Trump's political objectives, which included the elimination of research on climate, environmental justice, 'gender ideology,' and 'DEI.' These grant terminations are occurring not because the grant-funded research departed from its originally approved purpose, but because that purpose now offends the political agenda and ideological requirements of the Trump Administration. In terminating these grants, the agencies have violated the Constitution, numerous federal statutes, and their own regulations. Plaintiff UC researchers have suffered concrete financial, professional, and other harms from Defendants' unilateral termination of grants for projects to which they have already dedicated time and effort; for research upon which they have staked careers and reputations; and for work with research teams through which they endeavored to train a next generation. These terminations have impaired and will impair the public-serving research mission of the UC system and the concern for public welfare that undergirds it. Named Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class will continue to suffer such harms on an ongoing basis, and will experience increasing and irreparable harm absent the court declaration and injunction they seek through this lawsuit.
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump alleges that, under Biden, 'whoever used the autopen was the president'
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump intensified his assertions — without evidence — that officials using an autopen undermined the actions of his predecessor, Joe Biden, even suggesting Thursday that 'essentially whoever used the autopen was president.' 'I happen to think I know' who was using a tool that allows for auto signatures, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office, while saying it was the 'biggest scandal' in years. The Justice Department under Democratic and Republican administrations has recognized the use of an autopen to sign legislation and issue pardons for decades. Trump presented no evidence that Biden was unaware of the actions taken in his name, and the president's absolute pardon power is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. 'It's a very bad thing, very dangerous," Trump said, arguing that, 'Essentially, whoever used the autopen was the president." Those comments came a day after Trump directed his administration to investigate Biden's actions as president, alleging aides masked his predecessor's 'cognitive decline' and casting doubts on the legitimacy of his use of the autopen to sign pardons and other documents. An executive order he signed marked a significant escalation in Trump's targeting of political adversaries and could lay the groundwork for arguments by the Republican that a range of Biden's actions as president were invalid. Biden responded in a statement Wednesday night: 'Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency. I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn't is ridiculous and false.' Trump wrote in a memo Wednesday that, 'This conspiracy marks one of the most dangerous and concerning scandals in American history." The American public, he said, "was purposefully shielded from discovering who wielded the executive power, all while Biden's signature was deployed across thousands of documents to effect radical policy shifts.' Trump directed Attorney General Pam Bondi and White House counsel David Warrington to handle the investigation. Even as Trump doubled down on his accusations, it is unclear how far Trump will push this effort, which would face certain legal challenges. It nonetheless reflects his fixation on Biden, who defeated him in 2020, an election that Trump never conceded and continues to falsely claim was rigged against him. In lobbing allegations against Biden on Thursday, Trump continued to insist that the 2020 election was stolen from him. Trump frequently suggests that Biden was wrong to use an autopen, a mechanical device that replicates a person's authentic signature. Although they've been used in the White House for decades, Trump claims that Biden's aides were usurping presidential authority. Biden issued pardons for his two brothers and his sister shortly before leaving office, hoping to shield them from potential prosecution under Trump, who had promised retribution during last year's campaign. Other Biden pardon recipients included members of a congressional committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. Trump often suggests that his political opponents should be investigated, and he has directed the Justice Department to look into people who have angered him over the years. They include Chris Krebs, a former cybersecurity official who disputed Trump's claims of a stolen election in 2020, and Miles Taylor, a former Department of Homeland Security official who wrote an anonymous op-ed sharply critical of the president in 2018. Meanwhile, House Oversight Chairman James Comer of Kentucky, a Republican, requested transcribed interviews with five Biden aides, alleging they had participated in a 'cover-up' that amounted to 'one of the greatest scandals in our nation's history.' 'These five former senior advisors were eyewitnesses to President Biden's condition and operations within the Biden White House,' Comer said in a statement. 'They must appear before the House Oversight Committee and provide truthful answers about President Biden's cognitive state and who was calling the shots.' Interviews were requested with White House senior advisers Mike Donilon and Anita Dunn, former White House chief of staff Ron Klain, former deputy chief of staff Bruce Reed and Steve Ricchetti, a former counselor to the president. Comer reiterated his call for Biden's physician, Kevin O'Connor, and former senior White House aides Annie Tomasini, Anthony Bernal, Ashley Williams and Neera Tanden to appear before the committee. He warned subpoenas would be issued this week if they refuse to schedule voluntary interviews. 'I think that people will start coming in the next two weeks,' Comer told reporters. He added that the committee would release a report with its findings, 'and we'll release the transcribed interviews, so it'll be very transparent.' Rep. Brandon Gill, a freshman Republican from Texas, said "the American people didn't elect a bureaucracy to run the country,' said 'I think that the American people deserve to know the truth and they want to know the truth of what happened.' Democrats have dismissed the accusations as a distraction. 'Chairman Comer had his big shot in the last Congress to impeach Joe Biden and it was, of course, a spectacular flop,' said Rep. Jamie Raskin, the Maryland Democrat who served as the ranking member on the oversight committee in the previous Congress. 'And now he's just living off of a spent dream. It's over. And he should give up the whole thing.'
