Trump administration appeals to Supreme Court to allow $783 million research-funding cuts
The Justice Department argued a federal judge in Massachusetts was wrong to block the National Institutes of Health from making $783 million worth of cuts to align with President Donald Trump's priorities.
U.S. District Judge William Young found that the abrupt cancellations ignored long-held government rules and standards.
Young, an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, also said the cuts amounted to 'racial discrimination and discrimination against America's LGBTQ community.'
The ruling came in lawsuits filed by 16 attorneys general, public-health advocacy groups and some affected scientists. His decision addressed only a fraction of the hundreds of NIH research projects that have been cut.
Monday Mornings
The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week.
The Trump administration's appeal also takes aim at nearly two dozen cases over funding.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer pointed to a 5-4 decision on the Supreme Court's emergency docket from April that allowed cuts to teacher training programs to go forward. That decisions shows that district judges shouldn't be hearing those cases at all, but rather sending them to federal claims court, he argued.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Afghanistan's Taliban have ‘weaponized' the judicial system to oppress women, UN expert says
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Afghanistan's Taliban rulers have 'weaponized' the legal and judicial system to oppress women and girls in what amounts to 'crimes against humanity,' the independent U.N. investigator on human rights in the country said. Richard Bennett said in a report to the U.N. General Assembly circulated Wednesday that after seizing power in 2021 the Taliban suspended the 2004 constitution and laws protecting the rights of women and girls. These include a landmark law that criminalized 22 forms of violence against women, including rape and child and forced marriage. The Taliban dismissed all judges under the previous U.S.-backed government, including approximately 270 women, replacing them with men who share their extreme Islamic views, lack legal training and hand down decisions based on edicts issued by the Taliban, he said. In addition, he noted that the Taliban have assumed full control over law enforcement and investigative agencies, systematically purging Afghans who worked for the previous government. Bennett, who was appointed by the Geneva-based U.N. Human Rights Council, focused on access to justice and protection for women and girls in his report. He said he held meetings, focus-group discussions and one-on-one interviews with more that 110 Afghans inside and outside the country. He did so remotely because the Taliban have refused to grant him a visa to travel to Afghanistan. Since the Taliban took control of Afghanistan, their crackdown on women and girls has been widely reported and globally denounced. Taliban leaders have barred education for women and girls beyond sixth grade, banned most employment, and prohibited women from many public spaces, including parks, gyms and hairdressers. New laws ban women's voices and bare faces outside the home. The Taliban remain isolated from the West because of their restrictions on women and girls and have only been recognized by Russia. Bennett said the Taliban did not respond to an advance copy of the report and a request for information about their efforts to ensure access to justice and protection for women and girls. The Taliban defend their approach to justice by claiming they are implementing Islamic sharia law, but Islamic scholars and others have said their interpretation is unparalleled in other Muslim-majority countries and does not adhere to Islamic teachings. They say protecting the legal rights of women is a priority. Bennett said, however, that women have virtually no rights. 'Today, there are no women judges or prosecutors and no officially registered female lawyers, leaving women and girls with fewer safe channels to report abuse or seek redress,' he wrote. 'Coupled with a lack of female officials in the police and other institutions, the result is widespread underreporting of violence and discrimination against women and girls.' Bennett said access to justice for girls 'is further undermined by the dismantling of key legal safeguards and institutions protecting the rights of children,' including juvenile courts and juvenile rehabilitation centers. The Taliban requirement that a woman must be accompanied by a male relative also creates barriers to filing complaints and attending court proceedings, he said, and disproportionately affects widows, women who are the heads of their households, the displaced and disabled. 'Women who engage with the Taliban court system — whether as victims seeking redress, to resolve family issues, to obtain official documents or as alleged offenders — face a hostile environment,' Bennett said. 'Courts often reject complaints made by women and are especially reluctant to accept cases relating to divorce, child custody and gender-based violence.' Facing these obstacles, Bennett said, women increasingly turn to traditional and informal justice mechanisms, including formal jirgas and shuras — community councils of elders — and informal mediation by religious leaders, community elders or family. But these are all male-dominated and raise 'serious concerns about the rights of women and girls,' he said. He said international forums offer the best hope for justice. He pointed to the International Criminal Court's request on Jan. 23 for arrest warrants for two senior Taliban leaders accused of crimes against humanity for persecution 'on gender grounds.' And he urged all countries to support efforts to bring Afghanistan before the International Court of Justice, the U.N.'s highest tribunal, for violating the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
Toronto Star
an hour ago
- Toronto Star
North Carolina Gov. Stein signs stopgap budget bill and vetoes opt-in bill helping school choice
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein signed into law on Wednesday a stopgap spending measure while lawmakers remain in a state budget impasse. But he vetoed legislation that would direct state participation in a yet-implemented federal tax credit program to boost school-choice options, suggesting state Republicans acted hastily. The Democratic governor had already said this week he would sign the 'mini-budget' that the GOP-controlled General Assembly sent him last week. But he called it a poor substitution for a full two-year budget that House and Senate negotiators were unable to finalize before the new fiscal year began July 1.
Montreal Gazette
an hour ago
- Montreal Gazette
Letters: Where do Quebec politicians go for health care?
It is frightening to be a patient requiring health care in Quebec. The public sector is so strained that fatigued, overworked physicians can't help but eye the private sector. So we pay financially to go private, or we pay mentally, emotionally and physically when we go public. Either way, we pay. I wonder: Where do politicians receive their health care? Do they feel entitled to skip the wait-line if they use the public system? Do they use the public system at all? Is it unfair to conclude that politicians have no idea how it feels to wait and worry about getting care — as the rest of us do? Health care management should be in the hands of medical people, not politicians. Mary Armstrong, Montreal Longtime reader saw it coming Re: ' A bitter pill to swallow as family doctor shortage deepens ' (Allison Hanes, Aug. 6) Allison Hanes's column is accompanied by a photo of François Legault when he was health minister with the Parti Québécois government two decades ago. During those two decades, my wife has been warning in letters to The Gazette about the deteriorating situation in our health care system. Today I need to say for her: 'She told you so!' Arnold Yesovitch, Côte-St-Luc Bill 21: Judges are the best arbitrators Re: ' Supreme Court may be lifeline Legault needs ' (Opinion, Aug. 5) Raphaël Melançon refers to former minister Benoit Pelletier's view that the use of the notwithstanding clause to shield Bill 21 against Charter of Rights challenges is justified because it ensures 'collective interests are fairly taken into account.' It seems to me rather that the use of this clause enables the provincial government to be a judge in its own case as to whether its legislation is fair to the minorities whose rights it violates. By contrast, the CAQ government could have instead attempted to persuade the courts that Bill 21 was 'reasonable and demonstrably justified,' as allowed by the Charter — a better guarantee of the bill's fairness — but chose not to take this path. The fact that the judges are unelected, as referred to disparagingly by Melançon, is precisely the guarantee that they can judge Bill 21 according to its merits rather than public pressure. Robert Hajaly, Montreal The timely gift of Louise Penny What a wonderful coincidence when I opened The Gazette! On an annual visit to Montreal from their residence in Florida, our eldest son and his wife have added Knowlton to their 'getaway weekend.' As a fervent reader of Louise Penny's writing over the years, I included her novel The Grey Wolf in their treats-to-go package. With the creation of her café, so appreciated by the Knowlton community, I'm certain that the author's followers of her hero Insp. Armand Gamache will agree that 'goodness exists' via the gift of books. Vivianne M. Silver, Côte-St-Luc Submitting a letter to the editor Letters should be sent by email to letters@ We prioritize letters that respond to, or are inspired by, articles published by The Gazette. If you are responding to a specific article, let us know which one. Letters should be sent uniquely to us. The shorter they are — ideally, fewer than 200 words — the greater the chance of publication. Timing, clarity, factual accuracy and tone are all important, as is whether the writer has something new to add to the conversation. We reserve the right to edit and condense all letters. Care is taken to preserve the core of the writer's argument. Our policy is not to publish anonymous letters, those with pseudonyms or 'open letters' addressed to third parties. Letters are published with the author's full name and city or neighbourhood/borough of residence. Include a phone number and address to help verify identity; these will not be published. We will not indicate to you whether your letter will be published. If it has not been published within 10 days or so, it is not likely to be.
