Opinion - It's not just Trump: Federal judges are also targeting universities
Trump has used the extraordinary powers of the executive branch to freeze billions of dollars of funding for seven leading universities, demanding changes in their curricula and administration. The judges were more selective, targeting only Columbia University, while foreshadowing the same educational intrusion that Trump later deployed with a vengeance.
On May 6, 2024, the judges sent a boycott letter to Columbia's then-president, calling the university 'ground zero for the explosion of student disruptions, antisemitism and hatred for diverse viewpoints,' where 'disruptors have threatened violence, committed assaults and destroyed property.'
They declared they would refrain from hiring Columbia graduates as judicial clerks unless the university imposes 'serious consequences for students and faculty who have participated in campus disruptions,' and institutes conservative curricular and faculty hiring reforms.
On Mar. 7, the Trump administration announced, using strikingly similar language, the cancellation of approximately $400 million in federal grants and contracts due to Columbia's 'continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students,' including the failure 'to stop radical protestors from taking over buildings on campus.'
Additional cancellations, totaling more than $5 billion, have now been imposed on Harvard, Cornell, Brown, Princeton, Penn and Northwestern (where I am an emeritus law professor).
The parallel is unmistakable. It was the judges who first sought to use the control of government funds and contracts — through the employment of clerks — to pressure compliance with their educational views and societal objectives.
Trump is a wrecking ball, with no regard for norms, conventions or past practices. We expect judges to be more judicious. We especially expect them to comply with the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which prohibits leveraging clerkship appointments for extra-judicial objectives.
Canon 3B(3) of the code states that judges must make hiring decisions, including law clerks, 'fairly and only on the basis of merit.' In addition, Canon 2B prohibits the exploitation of their position to achieve non-judicial purposes by 'lend[ing] the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge.'
The Columbia boycott has nothing to do with the merits of unknown future applicants, who will not graduate until 2027 or 2028, and are uninvolved in the misbehavior of last year's Gaza protesters. Instead, it is intended to coerce Columbia into taking unspecified disciplinary measures against 'disrupters,' and undefined steps to broaden 'viewpoint diversity on the faculty and across the administration — including the admissions office.'
The ethics rules have no exception for professedly honorable objectives. Law clerks are public employees, provided to judges for assistance in deciding cases. It is improper to dangle such positions before third parties as inducements to advance a judge's ideological agenda, no matter how seemingly virtuous.
Unfortunately, the code of conduct can only be enforced by committees of federal judges, who are predictably protective of their colleagues in all but the most egregious circumstances. Formal complaints have been lodged against some of the boycotting judges under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, but they have all been dismissed.
The most recent dismissal came earlier this month from a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit Judicial Council, sitting in Chicago.
Obviously conscious of their own prerogatives, the panel members stressed the 'sensitive and highly confidential' relationship between judge and clerk. Thus, 'commensurate with the importance and sensitivity of the position, judges have broad discretion in the selection of their law clerks,' apparently limited only by anti-discrimination and anti-nepotism rules.
The panel's 12-page order simply ignores the glaring ethical problem inherent in withholding clerkships to compel the behavior of entire universities. In other contexts, the use of government jobs as rewards or penalties has been recognized as corruption. The panel, however, treats the boycott as though it were simply one more criterion for employment, akin to grade point average or law review membership.
No one would have noticed, or cared, if the individual judges had simply chosen to exclude Columbia graduates from consideration, but that was never the purpose of publishing their open letter. The judges' boycott was more than an exercise in personal choice. It was an attempt to enforce compliance with their stated demands.
In that regard, Canon 2B prohibits judges from using their official position to benefit their 'private interests,' which is an apt description of exploiting clerkships to coerce a judge's curricular preferences.
The panel shrugged off that problem in one sentence, saying the boycott's goal was 'to improve the quality of legal education [which] concerns the law more generally and not the judges' private interests or the private interests of others.'
This interpretation recasts ideological objectives, such as hiring more conservative professors, as law improvement. It consequently opens the door to all sorts of other abuses, so long as they are characterized as serving the public interest.
By that reasoning, a federal judge could refuse to hire a local university's graduates unless the athletic department fires the football coach.
A federal judicial appointment, however, does not include a roving commission to cure perceived social ills through employment boycotts. Judges may offer clerkships to whomever they choose. What they must not do is use the threat of non-hiring to extract concessions from third parties.
Trump surely did not need the example of a judicial boycott to embark on his campaign to remake higher education in his own image. Federal judges, on the other hand, should be embarrassed by their participation and endorsement of such proto-Trumpian tactics.
Steven Lubet is the Williams Memorial Professor Emeritus at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law.
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
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Democratic-led states sue over Trump restrictions on crime victim grants
By Nate Raymond (Reuters) -A group of Democratic-led states filed a lawsuit on Monday seeking to prevent the Trump administration from forcing them to cooperate with immigration enforcement activities in order to receive grant funding to support crime victims. The lawsuit filed in federal court in Rhode Island is the latest case to challenge efforts by Republican President Donald Trump's administration to impose immigration-related conditions on states' ability to receive federal funding. Monday's lawsuit by state attorneys general in 20 states and the District of Columbia takes aim at a condition the U.S. Department of Justice recently imposed on the ability of states to receive grants pursuant to the Victims of Crime Act, which Congress enacted in 1984 to bolster support for crime victims. The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment. The department administers programs funded by fines and penalties assessed in federal criminal cases that allow states to receive grant funding to provide services for victims including medical care, counseling, shelter and compensation for lost wages. Attorneys general from states including California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island say those funds help about 10 million people annually. In 2025, nearly $1.4 billion in such funding is available, the lawsuit said. But under a new Trump administration policy, states can lose out on such funding if they decline to provide U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement access to facilities or honor all civil immigration enforcement requests, the lawsuit said. The conditions were imposed in keeping with a policy Attorney General Pam Bondi unveiled in February requiring the Justice Department to ensure that federal funds do not flow to so-called "sanctuary jurisdictions" that do not cooperate with ICE. The states' lawsuit argues that such conditions are unlawful and violate the U.S. Constitution by undermining Congress' power over appropriations. They are asking a judge to block the Justice Department from enforcing the conditions. Judges in Rhode Island have issued a series of rulings preventing the administration from imposing conditions on grant funding that align with Trump's broader agenda. Most recently, a judge in the state this month barred the Justice Department from enforcing new restrictions on grant funding used to support victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.
Boston Globe
22 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Reed, Amo in West Africa to rebuild relationships amid Trump foreign policy turmoil
Rhode Island's ties to West Africa run unusually deep. Reed authored the Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness law, creating a pathway to citizenship for thousands of Liberians in the United States. And Amo's connection is personal: his parents immigrated to Rhode Island from Liberia and Ghana. Advertisement Their visit underscores how the turmoil of Trump-era foreign policy is still reverberating abroad — and how much effort it takes to rebuild relationships once taken for granted. Reed and Amo are meeting with government leaders and non-governmental organizations during the trip, and are expected back later this week. This story first appeared in Rhode Map, our free newsletter about Rhode Island that also contains information about local events, links to interesting stories, and more. If you'd like to receive it via email Monday through Friday, . Dan McGowan can be reached at
The Hill
22 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's trade ‘deals' are economically self-defeating and a geopolitical failure
To President Trump's supporters, the one-sided trade 'deals' negotiated with the United Kingdom, Japan and most recently the European Union may seem like victories. They may seem like a vindication of the president's supposed street-savvy negotiating style. In reality, they are self-defeating in their economics and harmful to America's alliances. Under the trade arrangement concluded at the end of July, the EU will scrap tariffs on U.S. imports and commit to large-scale purchases on American energy and defense systems, as well further U.S. investment. In exchange, the EU gets a U.S. tariff of 15 percent, vastly exceeding average tariff rates across the industrialized world in the post-war era. At the risk of stating the obvious, the three 'deals' are not trade agreements in any meaningful sense. They lack the legal weight that foreign trade agreements carry. Nor do they entail a liberalization of trade — rather, they ratify America's imposition of new tariff barriers against some of its closest allies, while also extracting concessions from these nations under threat of even higher tariffs. Because tariffs are effectively taxes on Americans, the U.S. economy and consumers are the first and foremost losers of these new 'deals,' especially in sectors where imports from the three partner economies serve as inputs into U.S. economic activity. The BMW plant in Spartanburg, S.C., to cite just one example, uses a lot of EU-made components; barring special, yet-unannounced carve-outs, its production has just become less competitive. Jobs will be lost, just as they were lost in the aftermath of Trump's first-term steel and aluminum tariffs across industries that rely on those metals. The geopolitical ramifications are even more pernicious. 'It's about security, it's about Ukraine,' the EU Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovic said to justify the European concessions back in July, not anticipating that the deal would have little impact on the administration's planned rapprochement with Russia, on full display in Alaska on Friday. American alliances since 1945 have been sustained by a perception of the U.S. as a fundamentally different kind of global superpower, one that was neither predatory nor seeking domination for its own sake. While Russia and China may have had control over their clients or over nations that they subjugated by brute force, the U.S. had real friends — at least until now. Europeans, the Japanese, or the Koreans have generally hoped for our leadership, comfortable in the knowledge that our decisions will be informed, at the very least, by a basic sense of decency. That sense is being shaken to the core. Trump is transforming a rules-based, voluntary system of international cooperation, imperfect as it was, into a system of quasi-colonial extortion. The MAGA camp might derive a sense of satisfaction from humiliating 'free-riding' U.S. allies, but the resulting arrangements are not sustainable. Canada and Mexico have learned that even a proper free trade agreement negotiated with a Trump administration and ratified by Congress offers little protection against new arbitrary tariffs. It will soon dawn on voters in Japan, the U.K. and the EU — if it hasn't already — that their country's trade deals are both hopelessly unbalanced and subject to change by Washington at a moment's notice. Even if the deals hold in the short term, they are bound the produce a political backlash, which will make the prospect of working together with the U.S. on matters of mutual interest far less likely. There was a reason why the Japanese government postponed the announcement of its trade deal with the U.S. until after its recent upper house parliamentary election, from which it has emerged badly bruised. Similarly, the European Commission will have a hard time selling its deal with Trump to member states — whose cooperation is essential if the promises of hundreds of billions in U.S.-bound investment and purchases of American goods are ever going to materialize. For decades, there have been voices in European politics decrying America's real or imaginary domination of the old continent. Today, they have a real, tangible grievance they can hold on to: The EU is essentially promising a large transfers of wealth to the U.S., in the form of future military and energy purchases as well as outbound investment, while acquiescing to being subjected to a trade policy that would have been essentially unthinkable a few months ago. If the Trump administration were purposefully trying to peel the EU, the U.K. and Japan away from America's system of alliances, it would be hard-pressed to find a more surefire method than these deals. They put to rest a benevolent vision of America that has underpinned our soft power worldwide for 80 years.
