Georgetown Law School defends practices amid US attorney DEI threat
Georgetown Law School Dean William Treanor is defending his school's curriculum after the Washington, D.C., U.S. attorney threatened to not hire any students from institutions that teach diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).
Interim D.C. U.S. Attorney Ed Martin sent a letter to the law school last month asking if the institution eliminated all connection to DEI, a top target of the Trump administration.
'At this time, you should know that no applicant for our fellows program, our summer internship, or employment in our office who is a student or affiliated with a law school or university that continues to teach and utilize DEI will be considered,' Martin wrote in the letter, according to The Washington Post.
Treanor responded on Thursday the school complies with all laws around discrimination and harassment, but he shot down Martin's attempt to influence curricula.
'The First Amendment, however, guarantees that the government cannot direct what Georgetown and its faculty teach and how to teach it,' Treanor said.
The law school dean said it is a 'constitutional violation' for Martin to say he will not hire from certain schools unless they teach what he wants.
'We look forward to your confirming that any Georgetown-affiliated candidates for employment with your office will receive full and fair consideration,' Treanor concluded in the letter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
16 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Supreme Court Unanimously Greenlights Lawsuit Over FBI's Botched Raid
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Thursday that an Atlanta family whose home was mistakenly raided by the FBI in 2017 can move forward with their lawsuit, granting them a new day in court. The decision stems from a pre-dawn incident in which an FBI SWAT team broke down the family's front door, deployed a flashbang grenade, and pointed weapons at Trina Martin, her then-boyfriend Toi Cliatt, and her 7-year-old son—only to realize moments later they had entered the wrong house. Although the agents quickly apologized and relocated to the correct address—blaming a GPS error for the mistake—Martin and Cliatt were left with emotional trauma and a damaged home. Their lawsuit against the federal government, alleging assault, false arrest, and other claims, was initially dismissed by lower courts. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that the agents were protected under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which prioritizes federal law over state law. But Martin's legal team, backed by advocacy groups across the political spectrum, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that such protections should not shield federal agents from accountability in clear cases of harm. The Court's decision reverses the lower rulings and revives a debate on law enforcement oversight and federal immunity. This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
22 minutes ago
Senate Democrats demand probe of Ed Martin's pledge to 'shame' Trump's opponents, other actions at DOJ
Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are pushing for an investigation into top Justice Department official Ed Martin over his stated plans to "shame" political opponents of President Donald Trump who he's unable to charge criminally, as well as a host of other politically charged matters Martin has publicly pledged to pursue in his new position. "I write to express my grave concern about Ed Martin's stated intention to abuse his new roles as lead of the so-called 'Weaponization Working Group' you constituted at the Department of Justice (DOJ) and as DOJ's Pardon Attorney," Sen. Dick Durbin, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, said in a letter transmitted to the Justice Department, which was first obtained by ABC News. "Following his disgraceful tenure as Interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Mr. Martin apparently plans to continue his misconduct in his new roles at DOJ." The DOJ did not immediately respond to an ABC News request for comment on the letter. Martin's controversial tenure as the interim U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C., in the opening months of Trump's presidency thrust the office into turmoil and led several Senate Republicans to state publicly they wouldn't support his permanent confirmation in the role. But once the White House announced they were pulling Martin's nomination, Trump said Martin would instead be appointed to several top positions working out of DOJ's main headquarters -- serving as an associate deputy attorney general, the U.S. pardon attorney and director of the so-called " Weaponization Working Group." Martin celebrated the news on his X account, posting 'Eagle Unleashed,' and in various interviews celebrated what he described as a mandate from Trump directly to target the alleged 'weaponization' of the department under the Biden administration. 'It's classic Donald Trump, right? That somebody tries to block him and block his pick, and he decides to double down,' Martin told Breitbart News last month. 'This is probably the greatest job I could ever envision.' In a news conference announcing his departure from the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office, Martin confirmed he planned to launch a probe of last-minute pardons issued by former President Joe Biden just before he left office -- and suggested that officials he's unable to charge would instead be publicly "shamed." "There are some really bad actors, some people that did some really bad things to the American people," Martin said. "And if they can be charged, we'll charge them. But if they can't be charged, we will name them ... And in a culture that respects shame, they should be people that are shamed. And that's a fact. That's the way things work. And so that's how I believe the job operates." The approach would directly conflict with l ongstanding DOJ policy that prohibits prosecutors from naming or disparaging individuals who they don't intend to charge criminally. When asked about that policy by ABC News during the news conference, Martin said he would "have to look at what the provision you're referring to, to see -- we want to square ourselves with doing the things correctly." The letter from Senate Democrats said Martin's statements "are a brazen admission that Mr. Martin plans to systematically violate the Justice Manual's prohibition on extrajudicial statements by shaming uncharged parties for nakedly partisan reasons. Weaponizing DOJ in this manner will further undermine the public's trust in the department in irreparable ways." In his early days as pardon attorney, Martin said he advised the president in his pardon of former Virginia county sheriff Scott Jenkins, who had been sentenced to ten years in prison for a federal bribery conviction. "No MAGA left behind," Martin posted on X in response to the pardon. Durbin's letter further cited reports Martin has "personally advocated" fast-tracking pardons for members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers who were convicted of seditious conspiracy stemming from their roles leading up to the attack on the Capitol, after President Trump initially opted to commute their sentences in his sweeping clemency action for the nearly 1600 individuals charged in connection with Jan. 6. Durbin's letter requests Bondi provide a host of records related to Martin's appointment and early days as head of the Weaponization Working Group and Pardon Attorney's Office. It's unclear whether DOJ will ultimately respond to Durbin's demands given Democrats' minority position on the committee.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Supreme Court revives lawsuit over mistaken FBI raid
The Supreme Court on Thursday revived an Atlanta family's lawsuit over a botched FBI raid on their home in 2017 but put off deciding its ultimate fate. In a unanimous decision, the justices instead sent the case back to a lower court to take another crack at deciding whether the lawsuit can move forward. Federal agents smashed through Trina Martin's front door in 2017 while executing a search warrant at the wrong address, believing it was the home of an alleged violent gang member. Martin and her boyfriend at the time were startled out of bed with a flash-bang grenade and guns raised, as her 7-year-old son screamed from another room. She sued the government in 2019, accusing the agents of assault and battery, false arrest and other violations, under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which waives the government's sovereign immunity and lets people injured by certain actions of federal officers bring some claims for damages against it under state law. But a federal judge in Atlanta dismissed the suit and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision. The justices now say the lower courts erred. 'Where does all that leave the case before us?' Justice Neil Gorsuch asked in the court's opinion. 'We can say this much: The plaintiffs' intentional-tort claims survive their encounter with subsection (h) thanks to the law enforcement proviso, as the Eleventh Circuit recognized. But it remains for that court on remand to consider whether subsection (a)'s discretionary-function exception bars either the plaintiffs' negligent or intentional-tort claims,' he wrote. Patrick Jaicomo, Martin's lawyer, argued before the justices that 'innocent victims' of the government's mistakes must have an available legal remedy. The FTCA was amended in 1974 after a pair of wrong-house raids made headlines, which he suggested makes clear that Martin's lawsuit should be allowed to proceed. Exceptions to the law make it more complicated. Frederick Liu, who argued for the government, said that an exception to the FTCA preventing plaintiffs from suing the government for damages that arise out of an officer's discretionary acts applies to the case. He also suggested that entering the wrong home was a 'reasonable mistake' and an example of the 'policy trade-offs' officers make when placed in risky situations. In the court's opinion, Gorsuch acknowledged that lower courts have taken different views on the discretionary-function exception and that 'important questions' must be weighed regarding under which circumstances they apply. 'But those questions lie well beyond the two we granted certiorari to address,' Gorsuch wrote. 'And before addressing them, we would benefit from the Eleventh Circuit's careful reexamination of this case in the first instance. 'It is work enough for the day to answer the questions we took this case to resolve, clear away the two faulty assumptions on which that court has relied in the past and redirect it to the proper inquiry,' he said. DEVELOPING
