logo
Virginia judge bars Youngkin's university board appointments rejected by Senate Democrats

Virginia judge bars Youngkin's university board appointments rejected by Senate Democrats

FAIRFAX, Va. — A judge ordered that eight public university board members tapped by Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin be removed from their posts in a victory for Virginia Senate Democrats who rejected the appointees in a June committee vote.
Fairfax Circuit Court Judge Jonathan D. Frieden severed the newly appointed members from their governing-board seats at the University of Virginia, George Mason University and the Virginia Military Institute. His order came at the request of nine Virginia Senate Democrats who filed a lawsuit last month requesting immediate action against the heads of university boards, also known as rectors or presidents.
The nine senators argued that despite the legislative committee rejecting the membership of the eight board members, the board chairs had continued acknowledging them as members, and Frieden agreed.
'Here, the public interest is served by protecting the power of the elected legislature to confirm or reject gubernatorial appointees,' Frieden wrote in an opinion letter about his order.
An attorney representing the board rectors said in court that if unsuccessful, he intended to appeal Frieden's order.
The case comes amid the White House's effort to reshape higher education , with a focus on DEI. Colleges in Virginia and across the U.S. have recently become a groundswell for political tension between academic leaders and the federal government, with boards at the center of those battles.
The political and cultural divide in higher education has only escalated conflicts over who gets to have a seat at the table for critical board votes that could shape those institutions' future.
In June, University of Virginia President Jim Ryan resigned after the Justice Department pushed for his removal. Earlier this month, the Trump administration initiated a civil rights investigation into George Mason University's hiring practices. The board at George Mason is having a meeting later this week.
And earlier this year, the board at the Virginia Military Institute ousted its president, Retired Army Maj. Gen. Cedric T. Wins. His tenure as president was marked by the implementation of diversity initiatives, which faced pushback from some conservative alumni.
Last month, the Virginia Senate Privileges and Elections committee met through an ongoing special session and opted against approving the eight university appointees made by Youngkin, notably including former Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli II and Caren Merrick, Youngkin's former commerce secretary . According to the state Constitution, all gubernatorial appointments are subject to confirmation by the General Assembly.
Following the vote, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Scott Surrovell wrote a letter to all board chairs, reminding them that appointees must be approved by the legislature.
But Republican Attorney General Jason Miyares also wrote to the heads of the university boards, instead advising them that the appointed members should remain on the governing bodies because only a committee, not the whole state General Assembly, had voted to reject them.
Mark Stancil, an attorney representing the Democratic senators, argued that the attorney general's guidance was incorrect.
'Their position flies in the face of the text of the Constitution, the text of the governing statute, and decades of longstanding practice,' he wrote in a court filing.
Christopher Michel, representing the rectors, countered that if the Constitution states that the legislature has the power to reject appointees, that would mean the full legislature rather than one committee.
'The General Assembly is a two-house body,' Michel said.
Michel further questioned whether the Virginia senators met the legal requirements necessary to have board members immediately removed by a judge. He asserted that Virginia senators had sued the wrong people, and that the rectors did not represent the voted-down members themselves. In turn, Stancil argued to the court that rectors are responsible for holding meetings and counting votes.
Frieden said in his letter that the rectors did have culpability in the case, writing: 'As the person presiding at those meetings, each ... is responsible for recognizing members who wish to speak and recognizing and announcing the votes of members.'
Inside the courtroom, Surovell, state Sen. Kannan Srinivasan and Deputy Attorney General Theo Stamos sat among the benches. Surovell said to a group of reporters outside the courtroom that state Democrats had a responsibility to push back.
'These boards just don't seem very interested in following any law or listening to anything that the entity that controls them says,' he said. 'This hearing today is about making sure that we have a rule of law in Virginia — that the laws are followed and that the Senate is listened to.'
___
Olivia Diaz is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Senate Democrats try to force DOJ to release Epstein files using little-known law

time14 minutes ago

Senate Democrats try to force DOJ to release Epstein files using little-known law

Senate Democrats on Wednesday said they are attempting to force the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files through a little-known, decades-old law. All seven Democrats on the Homeland Security Committee invoked a law that requires federal agencies provide information about "any matter within the jurisdiction of the committee" if at least five members request it. "This letter demands that the Justice Department produce documents that Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel have publicly already confirmed they have in their possession," Sen. Gary Peters, the panel's top Democrat, said at a press conference. "We all know in fact that the attorney general said, quote, she said they're sitting on her desk. It should be pretty easy to turn over documents that are sitting on the attorney general's desk," Peters added. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to request for comment. Peters was joined by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Richard Blumenthal at the press conference, during which they touted their move as a turning point in their quest for transparency over the Trump administration's handling of the Epstein matter. "Today's letter matters. It's not a stunt, it's not symbolic, it's a formal exercise of congressional power under federal law, and we expect an answer from DOJ by August the 15, that's what accountability looks like," Schumer said. "This is what oversight looks like, and this is what keeping your promises to the American people look like." Blumenthal agreed that this measure was invoked as a powerful oversight tool. "This letter has some force of law," Blumenthal said. "This letter invokes a statute that has been little used because it has been unnecessary in the past to enforce transparency. It's necessary now because this administration is stonewalling and stalling and concealing, and the American people are rightly asking where they have to hide. What's at stake here is not just the president's promises." The Democrats, who said their urging of a release of the Epstein files was also done as a way of seeking justice for Epstein's victims, were asked at the news conference whether Democratic senators would be comfortable with redactions in their release. Schumer said lawmakers "wouldn't force any agreements that have been broken," but added that he believes "almost everything can come out." Schumer also said that they've been "talking" to their Republican colleagues to get these files public but would eventually seek "recourse in the courts" if cooperation isn't achieved.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris says she will not run for California governor
Former Vice President Kamala Harris says she will not run for California governor

American Press

time15 minutes ago

  • American Press

Former Vice President Kamala Harris says she will not run for California governor

Former Vice President Kamala Harris will not run for California governor next year, leaving open the possibility that she could mount a third run for the White House in 2028. 'Over the past six months, I have spent time reflecting on this moment in our nation's history and the best way for me to continue fighting for the American people and advancing the values and ideals I hold dear,' Harris said in a statement released by her office Wednesday. 'I have given serious thought to asking the people of California for the privilege to serve as their governor. I love this state, its people and its promise. It is my home. But after deep reflection, I've decided that I will not run for Governor in this election,' she said. Harris' decision extends a guessing game about her political future that started after she lost last year's presidential election to Donald Trump. Harris spent months privately considering whether to run for governor, stage another run for the White House or step away from electoral politics altogether after her bruising defeat by Trump. She has not ruled out another run for president, after unsuccessful bids in 2020 and 2024. It's not known when she will make that decision. In her statement, Harris never mentions Trump directly but said 'our politics, our government, and our institutions have too often failed the American people, culminating in this moment of crisis.' 'For now, my leadership — and public service — will not be in elected office. I look forward to getting back out and listening to the American people, helping elect Democrats across the nation who will fight fearlessly, and sharing more details in the months ahead about my own plans,' Harris added. 'In the United States of America, power must lie with the people. And We, the People must use our power to fight for freedom, opportunity, fairness and the dignity of all. I will remain in that fight,' the statement said. Harris would have entered the crowded contest to replace term-limited Gov. Gavin Newsom as a front-runner given her widespread name recognition, fundraising prowess and track record of winning statewide elections. Before serving as U.S. senator and vice president, she was elected state attorney general and district attorney in San Francisco. But after years in Washington on the national and international stage, it was never clear if Harris was interested in returning to the less-glamorous world of statehouse politics in Sacramento. Outside California, Harris' political career has been marked by historic firsts but also disappointments. Harris sought the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, but dropped out of the race before the leadoff Iowa caucuses — the first defeat of her political career. After Joe Biden chose her as his running mate, she made history as the first woman, Black person or person of South Asian descent to serve as vice president. In 2024, Harris became the Democratic presidential nominee after Biden left the race months before Election Day and endorsed her. She lost that race to Trump, who won every swing state. Harris faces some uncertainty if she chooses to make another White House run. Harris would have to convince national Democrats that she's the face of the party's future, despite losing to Trump last fall. She also carries the baggage of being tied to Biden, whom Democrats have increasingly criticized for seeking a second term rather than stepping aside. Biden's legacy was tarnished as he left office, and since then new questions have swirled about his physical and mental abilities as his term ended. The 2028 presidential contest is expected to attract a large field, which could potentially include Newsom. Any candidate will have to unify a fractious Democratic Party with low approval ratings that is struggling to slow Trump's agenda in Washington. In her most extensive public remarks since leaving office in January, Harris said in a San Francisco speech that Trump's leadership represented a ' wholesale abandonment ' of American ideals. Harris' decision not to seek the governorship keeps the contest to replace Newsom wide open. The Democratic field includes former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former Biden administration health secretary Xavier Becerra and a handful of state officeholders.

Ted Cruz defends Sydney Sweeney amid American Eagle ad backlash
Ted Cruz defends Sydney Sweeney amid American Eagle ad backlash

USA Today

time15 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Ted Cruz defends Sydney Sweeney amid American Eagle ad backlash

After an ad starring Sydney Sweeney outraged viewers, Sen. Ted Cruz is coming to her defense. The Texas Republican took to X July 29 to blast the "crazy left" for criticizing Sweeney's American Eagle denim jeans campaign as a dog whistle for eugenics and the glorification of whiteness. Responding to a New York Post article, which detailed the controversy, Cruz wrote: "Wow. Now the crazy Left has come out against beautiful women. I'm sure that will poll well…." Sydney Sweeney, an American Eagle ad campaign and why it sparked backlash Part of a larger partnership between the "Euphoria" actress and the popular clothier, the ad campaign used wordplay to describe Sweeney as having "good genes," with the latter word doing double duty, meaning not just her DNA but also the denim on her body (which was American Eagle made). Soon after the campaign dropped, people began to sound the alarm on what they saw as a dangerous message about the beauty ideal, race and "good" versus "bad" genes. Cruz joined a parade of notables adding their two cents, including "Bachelor" star Gabby Windey and even Doja Cat, who mocked the ad in a TikTok video. In one of several videos for the advertising blitz, Sweeney, clad in a denim-on-denim outfit, says: "Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality and even eye color." "My jeans are blue," she says as the camera pans across her blue denim and her blue eyes. Sydney Sweeney critics compare jeans campaign to Brooke Shields' Calvin Klein ad Consumers were quick to point out what they saw as the regressive nature of the material. A blonde shown sensually, catering to the male gaze, they argued, was a stereotypical symbol of a bygone era. "How far back do you plan on going? Do you still wanna vote?" one commenter asked, while another chided: "You accept these jobs that objectify your body. Fight the patriarchy, don't join it." Even more concerning, critics argued, was the use of Sweeney as the archetype of "good genes." Defined generally as the use of selective breeding to "improve" the human race through emphasis on desirable traits, the pseudoscience of eugenics has a dark backstory, used in the past as a vehicle for racial violence and sterilization. Lifting Sweeney's genes up as "good," critics said, notches into a painful and dangerous history. That the controversy stems from a denim ad, and one from a company with "American" in the name, further complicates the reception. Americana and denim go hand in hand, the stiff fabric harkening back to cowboy culture, workmen's uniforms and other mythologized aspects of the national identity.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store