Trump: McMahon will begin process of dismantling Education Dept after Supreme Court win
'The United States Supreme Court has handed a Major Victory to Parents and Students across the Country, by declaring the Trump Administration may proceed on returning the functions of the Department of Education BACK TO THE STATES. Now, with this GREAT Supreme Court Decision, our Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon, may begin this very important process,' Trump said on Truth Social.
The high court's decision is a victory for Trump, enabling him to move forward with fulfilling one of his major campaign promises, which was the end of the federal agency's work.
Trump continued, 'The Federal Government has been running our Education System into the ground, but we are going to turn it all around by giving the Power back to the PEOPLE. America's Students will be the best, brightest, and most Highly Educated anywhere in the World. Thank you to the United States Supreme Court!'
The Supreme Court issued its decision earlier on Monday, in a 6-3 vote along ideological lines.
Since taking office, the administration has sought to lay off half of the agency's workforce and transfer some of its core functions, such as managing student loans, to other federal departments.
U.S. District Judge Myong Joun blocked those efforts in May and ruled that Trump needed congressional authorization, ordering him to reinstate the roughly 1,400 workers who had been laid off two months prior.
The ruling on Monday lifts Joun's injunction as the litigation proceeds in the lower courts, but it is not a final decision.
The majority did not explain its reasoning, as is typical in emergency decisions, while the three Democratic-appointed justices publicly dissented and called the ruling 'indefensible.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's DOJ puts companies on notice: Don't evade tariffs
The Justice Department is putting American companies on notice that they could be prosecuted if they chose to evade President Trump's tariffs, even as the legality of the president's "Liberation Day" duties remain unsettled in US courts. The message came in a DOJ announcement earlier this month stipulating that prosecutors would step up investigations into suspiciously classified imports and charge those who misidentify products with fraud. 'While the DOJ has always taken some customs cases, this is a different, more aggressive, visible stance than they usually would,' said Thompson Coburn trade lawyer Robert Shapiro. Read more: 5 ways to tariff-proof your finances The plan — to be carried out by the DOJ's new Market, Government, and Consumer Fraud Unit — marks a shift in enforcement tactics from prior administrations that relied mostly on policing misconduct through administrative proceedings, even during Trump's first term in office. The new Trump administration instead wants to prioritize criminal charges against companies and individuals that try to evade US tariffs. The overarching strategy was first outlined by Matthew R. Galeotti, head of the Justice Department's Criminal Division, who wrote in a May memo that an increasing focus on white collar crime would include "trade and customs fraudsters, including those who commit tariff evasion." At the same time, the Trump administration finds itself in the unusual position of defending the legality of the duties it pledges to enforce. Oral arguments in a federal lawsuit challenging the president's tariffs are set to take place before the US Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., this Thursday. The small business importers challenging the legal standing of the duties already proved it was possible to temporarily derail Trump's global tariffs with a lower court victory in May. In a separate challenge, two toy manufacturers are scheduled to make their own arguments against Trump's tariffs before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Sept. 30, following their own lower court victory. 'We're going to raise the ante' Tariff violations can be prosecuted under civil or criminal laws. However, even fraud cases were often handled administratively by past administrations, according to Shapiro. 'I think the administration is just saying we're going to raise the ante on this,' Shapiro said. University of Kansas School of Law professor Raj Bhala said laws against customs fraud have long been in force, but the appetite for the DOJ and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to clamp down on violations has increased. Historically, Bhala and other trade lawyers said, prosecutors focused government resources on suspected tariff violations by US adversaries such as China, Iran, and North Korea, and particularly on export controls meant to keep controlled items from shipping to those countries. Producer-exporters, especially in China and other high-tariff regions, have been using evasion techniques for decades, mostly to skirt anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders, Bhala said. But now, under more imposing tariffs, incentives to evade duties have spiked 'enormously.' 'What is clear is that a lot of companies are looking for a way to limit the impact of the duties,' Shapiro said. In this new tariff and enforcement environment, trade experts suspect that corporate America and its trading partners are on high alert. Erika Trujillo, a trade attorney with customs risk management firm SEIA Compliance Technologies, said the shift toward more enforcement happening at the DOJ and less through administrative procedures could increase politically motivated targeting of companies viewed as adverse to the Trump administration's interests. 'I do think trade restrictions were used as both a sword and a shield for foreign companies, or in terms of dealing with international trade,' Trujillo said. Common tariff evasion techniques include misclassifying goods, falsely labeling a product's country of origin, making minor modifications to a product while it's in a lower-tariff jurisdiction to pass it off as manufactured there, and transhipping goods through lower-tariff jurisdictions. Read more: The latest news and updates on Trump's tariffs 'It's hard to imagine that any well-run company that has supply chains stretching across the globe — particularly in higher-tariff jurisdictions like China or Cambodia — would not be having vigorous discussions to ensure every step in the supply chain is properly documented and audited,' Bhala said. Bhala cautions that the stakes are high for importers subject to US jurisdiction. 'They're the importer of record and they're the ones who are liable for the tariffs,' he said. 'And false declarations are what we call 'go to jail stuff.'' For fraud, fines can also be assessed, up to the domestic value of the merchandise. For civil violations made based on negligent actions, maximum penalties are two times the underpayment of duties, in addition to original duties. For violations based on gross negligence, penalties increase to four times the underpayment of duties. For businesses looking to assess their risk, US Customs maintains an electronic system called the Automated Commercial Environment (ACT) that allows importers to view what their classification data looks like to customs. Small and midsize companies may find it more difficult to evaluate their compliance risks compared to multinational firms. 'If you're an SME, you probably have one or two lawyers, and they're not necessarily trade specialists,' Bhala said. Plus, there are different rules for thousands of products. For example, a typical NAFTA good, he explained, traverses the US-Canada border roughly four times. 'It's really difficult for companies of that size to be dealing with this,' Trujillo said. One major challenge is finding affordable internal expertise. 'Almost every company I know is actively hiring for both customs and export controls, and sanctions. You're basically stuck going to law firms or other external consultancy, and the small and medium-sized firms are maybe not going to have the budget to pay $1,100 an hour.' Read more: What Trump's tariffs mean for the economy and your wallet For certain suspected violations like those made by mistake, Shapiro said it doesn't make economic sense for the DOJ to get involved. 'They don't have the manpower for it,' he said. But a new enforcement policy seems to fit the Trump administration's broader tariff agenda, he added. 'If you're going to have this tariff policy, you're going to have to take a more aggressive stance, because it's a huge ocean of imports, and it's very hard for customs to enforce against everyone.' Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices
CNN
25 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Supreme Court shows unflinching regard for Trump
Ever since Chief Justice John Roberts swore in Donald Trump at the US Capitol January 20 – with the eight other Supreme Court justices looking on – the question has been whether they would restrain a president who vowed to upend the constitutional order. The answer, a half-year later, is no. That was underscored this month by the court's decisions allowing Trump to fire another set of independent regulators, to dismantle the Department of Education and to deport migrants to dangerous countries where they have no citizenship or connection. Meanwhile, the fissures among the nine have deepened. They have condemned each other in written opinions and revealed the personal strains in public appearances. The conservative majority that controls the court has repeatedly undercut the US district court judges on the front lines who've held hearings, discerned the facts, and issued orders to check Trump actions. In the most significant case so far related to Trump's second term, touching on birthright citizenship, Justice Amy Coney Barrett pointedly addressed the role of lower court judges, saying they have a limited ability to block arguably unconstitutional moves. '(F)ederal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them,' Barrett wrote for the conservative majority as it reversed a series of lower court decisions. 'When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.' Dissenting in that late June case, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the majority had essentially 'shoved lower court judges out of the way.' More recently, last Wednesday, the conservative majority overrode US district and appellate court judges to let Trump fire Biden-appointed members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission who'd been confirmed by the Senate and were still serving their terms. To justify the action, the conservative majority referred to an earlier action in May letting Trump remove members of two independent entities that protect private employees and federal workers, respectively, the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board. Neither in the earlier case nor the new one centered on the commission that shields consumers from hazardous products did the majority acknowledge that a 1935 precedent, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, had protected such independent board members from being fired without legitimate reason such as misconduct. As lower court judges have noted, the justices have never reversed Humphrey's Executor, leaving it as a precedent that judges – at least those below the nine justices – must follow. Without formally taking up the issue, calling for briefing and holding arguments, the high court is nonetheless signaling a new course – obliquely. 'Although our interim orders are not conclusive as to the merits, they inform how a court should exercise its equitable discretion in like cases,' the Supreme Court said in its unsigned order on July 23. 'The stay we issued in (the May case) reflected 'our judgment that the Government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty.'' The message: They did it before, they can do it again. Referring to the consequences, dissenting Justice Elena Kagan wrote, 'By means of such actions, this Court may facilitate the permanent transfer of authority, piece by piece by piece, from one branch of Government to another.' The high court similarly brushed aside lower court determinations when it ruled on July 14 against states and labor unions that had sued the Department of Education for its actions to dissolve the agency. The majority declined to offer any hint of its rationale. However, the dissenting liberal justices in a 19-page opinion picked up lower court judges' emphasis on the history of the agency created by Congress nearly a half-century ago: '(T)he Department plays a vital role in this Nation's education system, safeguarding equal access to learning and channeling billions of dollars to schools and students across the country each year. Only Congress has the power to abolish the Department.' Referring to Education Secretary Linda McMahon's directives removing half the staff and aiming for an eventual shutdown of the department, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, added, 'When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary's duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it.' The six Republican-appointed conservatives have expressed no dread, offered no warnings that Trump's actions might ever go too far, unlike the Democratic-appointed liberal dissenters. The conservatives, in fact, took pains to avoid any disapproval of Trump's plan to end birthright citizenship – that is, the constitutional guarantee that children born in the US become citizens even if their parents are not – as they clipped lower courts' power to impose nationwide injunctions. That June 27 decision's effect on his proposed lifting of birthright citizenship is still working its way through lower courts. Sotomayor and Jackson have routinely protested in provocative terms. When Sotomayor dissented in a high-profile deportation case earlier this month, she warned that migrants flown out of the US to South Sudan could face torture or death. The two liberals have also referred to the personal costs. Sotomayor said in a May speech that she sometimes returns to her office after a decision is issued, closes her door and weeps. Jackson, who seems most isolated from the rest of the justices, told an audience earlier this month she is kept up at night by 'the state of our democracy.' The conservatives who dominate have directed any angst or anger not toward the executive branch but toward their judicial colleagues. In the birthright citizenship case, Barrett (in the majority) and Jackson (dissenting) traded insults that suggested a lack of mutual respect. 'We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument,' Barrett wrote, even as she criticized her for choosing 'a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever. … Rhetoric aside, Justice Jackson's position is difficult to pin down.' Jackson wrote that the Barrett majority had reduced the case to 'a mind-numbingly technical query.' And Jackson, writing alone, asserted, 'the majority sees a power grab—but not by a presumably lawless Executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain text of the Constitution. Instead, to the majority, the power-hungry actors are … (wait for it) … the district courts.' Roberts signed onto all of Barrett's opinion in that late June case. If he and fellow conservatives engage in any special regard or deference, it's not for their lower court colleagues or the liberals with whom they sit. It's for Donald Trump.
Boston Globe
26 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Russia kills 21 civilians in Ukraine as the Kremlin remains defiant over Trump threats
Trump said Monday he is giving Russian President Vladimir Putin 10 to 12 days to stop the killing in Ukraine after three years of war, moving up a 50-day deadline he had given the Russian leader two weeks ago. The move meant Trump wants peace efforts to make progress by Aug. 7-9. Advertisement Trump has repeatedly rebuked Putin for talking about ending the war but continuing to bombard Ukrainian civilians. But the Kremlin hasn't changed its tactics. 'I'm disappointed in President Putin,' Trump said during a visit to Scotland. The Kremlin pushed back, however, with a top Putin lieutenant warned Trump against 'playing the ultimatum game with Russia.' 'Russia isn't Israel or even Iran,' former president Dmitry Medvedev, who is deputy head of the country's Security Council, wrote on social platform X. 'Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war. Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with his own country,' Medvedev said. Since Russia's full-scale invasion of its neighbor, the Kremlin has warned Kyiv's Western backers that their involvement could end up broadening the war to NATO countries. Advertisement 'Kremlin officials continue to frame Russia as in direct geopolitical confrontation with the West in order to generate domestic support for the war in Ukraine and future Russian aggression against NATO,' the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington think tank, said late Monday. The Ukrainian air force said Russia launched two Iskander-M ballistic missiles along with 37 Shahed-type strike drones and decoys at Ukraine overnight. They say 32 Shahed drones were intercepted or neutralized by Ukrainian air defenses. The Russian attack close to midnight Monday hit the Bilenkivska Correctional Facility with four guided aerial bombs, according to the State Criminal Executive Service of Ukraine. At least 42 inmates were hospitalized with serious injuries, while another 40 people, including one staff member, sustained various injuries. The strike destroyed the prison's dining hall, damaged administrative and quarantine buildings, but the perimeter fence held and no escapes were reported, authorities said. Ukrainian officials condemned the attack, saying that targeting civilian infrastructure, such as prisons, is a war crime under international conventions. In Dnipro, missiles hit the city of Kamianske, partially destroying a three-story building and damaging nearby medical facilities including a maternity hospital and a city hospital ward. Two people were killed and five were wounded, including a pregnant woman who is now in a serious condition, according to regional head Serhii Lysak. Further Russian attacks hit communities in Synelnykivskyi district with FPV drones and aerial bombs, killing at least one person and injuring two others. According to Lysak, Russian forces also targeted the community of Velykomykhailivska, killing a 75-year-old woman and injuring a 68-year-old man.
