Judge blocks Trump effort to take back pandemic-era relief funds for schools
Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown (D) in 2023. (File photo by Bryan P. Sears/Maryland Matters)
A U.S. District Court judge in New York on Tuesday temporarily blocked the Trump administration's plan to cancel more than $1 billion of previously approved pandemic-era relief funding to schools across the country.
The preliminary injunction issued by District Judge Edgardo Ramos prevents the U.S. Department of Education and its secretary, Linda McMahon, from recovering money 'during the pendency of this litigation or until further order of the Court.'
Maryland had joined 15 states and the District of Columbia in the suit against the department and McMahon last month. The suit, filed April 10, followed a letter from McMahon that arrived in email inboxes at 5 p.m. on Friday, March 28, advising state sch0ol officials that any unspent COVID-19 federal recovery funds were being reclaimed immediately.
Most of the money in Maryland comes from the American Rescue Plan's Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief, or ARP ESSER, program. McMahon wrote that it didn't make sense for the federal goverment to be awarding COVID-19 grants 'years after the COVID pandemic ended.'
Maryland officials initially estimated that as much as $418 million could be at stake, the most of any state in the lawsuit. School officials announced last week, before the state Board of Education meeting, that the number is actuallly closer to $232.1 million, but the injunction was still welcome.
'COVID-19 may be over, but its impact is still being felt in schools across our State and nation, as reading and math scores remain lower than pre-pandemic levels and students continue to struggle with behavioral health issues since schools reopened,' Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown (D) said in a statement Tuesday.
'This ruling preserves hundreds of millions of dollars for Maryland schools, allowing our educational leaders to continue giving their students the support they need and deserve,' Brown said.
A U.S. Department of Education spokesperson did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment Tuesday night.
The money is being used for various educational programs and school construction projects, ranging from tutoring and reading materials to the installation of heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems.
The lawsuit highlighted several affected projects, such as Baltimore City Public Schools' cancellation of tutoring and after-school programs. The school system hasn't been reimbursed $48 million.
Besides D.C. and Maryland, others in the suit were Arizona, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, Oregon and Pennsylvania.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
10 minutes ago
- CBS News
Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware, Colorado sue Trump administration over plan to distribute machine gun converters
Maryland, New Jersey and Delaware joined a multi-state lawsuit against the Trump administration to prevent it from distributing devices that allow semi-automatic weapons to be converted into machine guns. The lawsuit stems from a May 16 settlement agreement between the Trump administration and Rare Breed Triggers, a company that manufactures devices known as forced reset triggers. The lawsuit also includes Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Washington, D.C. What are forced reset triggers? Forced Reset Triggers, or FRTs, are aftermarket triggers that enable semi-automatic guns to fire as fast as fully automatic weapons. In 2022, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) ordered the company to halt sales and declared that FRTs would be considered machine guns under federal law, which consequently made them subject to tighter restrictions. Rare Breed Triggers disputed the ATF's stance and continued selling its FRTs, leading the federal government to file a lawsuit against the company in 2023. At the same time, the National Association for Gun Rights sued the ATF in federal court in Texas, challenging its classification of the FRT-15 as a machine gun. The May 16 settlement ended the litigation between the U.S. government and Rare Breed Triggers. "The Department's agreement with Rare Breed Triggers avoids the need for continued appeals in United States v. Rare Breed Triggers and continued litigation in other, related cases concerning the same issue," an announcement by the Department of Justice read. Under the lawsuit, ATF can stop enforcing the law against FRTs and can redistribute the devices previously seized by the agency. "Forced reset triggers turn semi-automatic firearms into weapons of war capable of inflicting devastating impacts on Maryland communities," said AG Brown. "The Trump administration's decision to send these previously seized firearms back to Maryland, where they are illegal, makes our neighbors and children more vulnerable to mass shootings." Suing over forced reset triggers With the lawsuit announced Monday, the states hope to prevent FRTs from being redistributed. "We're seeking a preliminary injunction to block the redistribution of forced reset triggers into our states," New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin said Monday morning. "This is just part of what we're doing in New Jersey and in the states we're representing to reduce gun violence." Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings said the state banned rapid-fire devices in 2022. Maryland criminal law also bans rapid-fire activators. "These devices enable firearms to fire up to 900 bullets per minute," Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown said. "The increased rate of fire allows carnage and chaos to reign on the streets. Everyone nearby becomes vulnerable to serious injury or death." Maryland sues gun manufacturer over machine gun converter In a similar move, Maryland and Baltimore sued gun manufacturer Glock in February, alleging the company violated the state's Gun Industry Accountability Act. The lawsuit alleged that Glock contributed to the gun violence crisis by promoting the use of switches, a device that converts a pistol into a machine gun. During the Maryland General Assembly, lawmakers proposed a bill banning a list of weapons that can be converted from semi-automatic weapons to fully automatic using an attachment referred to as an auto-sear, or "switch." Just last week, Baltimore Police arrested a group of teens who they said had multiple guns and ammunition, along with an auto-sear attachment.
Associated Press
13 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Florida agency tells newspaper to halt reporting angle on foundation associated with governor's wife
ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — Florida's child welfare agency sent a letter to a Florida newspaper telling it to 'cease and desist' its reporting on foster families for a story about a nonprofit associated with Gov. Ron DeSantis' wife that is the subject of an investigation. The Orlando Sentinel received the letter on Friday from the state Department of Children and Families, whose top official is appointed by the governor. The letter claimed that the newspaper's Tallahassee reporter had used threats to coerce foster families into making negative statements about the Hope Florida Foundation when he contacted them about the welfare nonprofit behind the signature initiative of Casey DeSantis, Florida's first lady. 'Cease and desist the above-described intimidation of these families,' the DCF letter said. Orlando Sentinel Executive Editor Roger Simmons said the agency's characterization of the reporter's conduct was 'completely false.' The yet-to-be-published story was looking into grants distributed by Hope Florida to organizations, families and individuals, according to the Sentinel. 'We stand by our stories and reject the state's attempt to chill free speech and encroach on our First Amendment right to report on an important issue,' Simmons said in an email. DCF on Monday didn't provide an immediate response to an inquiry about the letter. DCF posted the cease-and-desist letter on social media Friday, saying Hope Florida had supported foster families with donations to repair their homes following last year's hurricanes. The letter is attempting to intimidate the Sentinel from publishing what may be unflattering news about Hope Florida in what is known as prior restraint, and prior restraint efforts typically are unconstitutional, said Clay Calvert, a law professor emeritus at the University of Florida and nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. If he were the Sentinel's attorney, Calvert said, he would tell the agency 'to go pound sand.' 'DCF can send all the cease and desist letters it wants, but the Sentinel isn't obligated to follow any of them,' he said. 'This is really trying to silence any negative coverage before it comes out.' Prosecutors in Tallahassee have opened an investigation related to the Hope Florida Foundation. A public records custodian in the office of Second Judicial Circuit State Attorney Jack Campbell confirmed the existence of 'an open, on-going investigation' last month in response to a records request from The Associated Press. The investigation was first reported by the Miami Herald/Tampa Bay Times. Republican state lawmakers in DeSantis' own party have been scrutinizing Hope Florida and its nonprofit foundation, which gave $10 million from a state Medicaid settlement to two nonprofits. Those groups in turn gave millions to a political committee, chaired by DeSantis' then-chief of staff, that campaigned against a failed referendum on recreational marijuana. In April, Republican state Rep. Alex Andrade wrapped up the investigation he had been spearheading into Hope Florida, saying he would leave the rest of the inquiry to 'the FBI and Department of Justice,' though there is no public evidence that either is doing so. Andrade has alleged that the flow of funds from the foundation to the nonprofits and on to the political committees amounts to 'conspiracy to commit money laundering and wire fraud.' The governor has dismissed the investigation of Hope Florida as a politically motivated smear against his wife, whom he's floated as his potential successor when he terms out in 2026. ___ Follow Mike Schneider on the social platform Bluesky: @
CBS News
15 minutes ago
- CBS News
The Supreme Court will issue a flurry of decisions in the coming weeks. Here's what to expect.
Washington — It's June, and for the Supreme Court, that means the justices will spend the coming days and weeks releasing a flurry of opinions as they prepare for a summer recess before the start of their new term in October. This year's break is unlikely to be a quiet one for the high court, as the Trump administration has been seeking emergency relief from the justices at a steady clip as it appeals adverse decisions that have stymied implementation of President Trump's second-term agenda. The Supreme Court has already issued opinions in a handful of big cases that were before it during its current term. The justices ruled 7-2 to uphold a Biden administration rule that regulates unserialized firearms called ghost guns. The court split 4-4 in a dispute over an effort to create the nation's first religious charter school in Oklahoma, which left in place a state supreme court decision blocking the contract creating the school. In a pair of unanimous decisions last week, the Supreme Court revived an Ohio woman's lawsuit against her employer that alleged she was discriminated against because she is straight, and blocked Mexico's $10 billion lawsuit against U.S. gun manufacturers. Amid the ongoing emergency appeals landing before the high court, the justices will be handing down opinions in more than two dozen cases that have yet to be resolved. Here are the biggest legal battles that are still before the Supreme Court: Ban on gender-affirming care The case known as U.S. v. Skrmetti involves a Tennessee law that restricts access to gender-affirming care. The Biden administration, three families and a physician argued that the ban violates the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law. The law prohibits medical treatments like puberty blockers or hormone therapy for transgender adolescents under the age of 18. Tennessee is one of 25 states that have passed laws that seek to restrict access to gender-affirming care for young people diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The legal battle over the ban is the first in which the Supreme Court waded into the debate over health care for transgender youth and it is one of the most significant cases before the justices this term. Following arguments in December, the court's conservative members appeared sympathetic to Tennessee's efforts to restrict access to the medical care for young people experiencing gender dysphoria. Birthright citizenship and nationwide injunctions The Supreme Court held a rare May argument session to consider a trio of emergency appeals from the Justice Department involving the president's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship. The administration asked the high court in March to allow it to partially enforce the policy against states and individuals who are not involved in the three lawsuits while legal challenges to Mr. Trump's order move forward. If the court grants the Justice Department's request, the administration would be prevented from implementing the birthright citizenship measure against 22 states, seven individuals and two immigrants' rights organizations. But the dispute also involves whether the district court judges who issued injunctions blocking the policy nationwide had the authority to do so. The Trump administration has argued that these nationwide injunctions have gotten out of control. Judges have granted them in a slew of legal challenges to Mr. Trump's second-term policies. Some conservative members of the Supreme Court have been skeptical about nationwide injunctions. But during arguments last month, the justices appeared divided on the issue and struggled with some of the practicalities of allowing a challenged policy to broadly take effect while individuals bring their own lawsuits in courts around the country — the likely outcome if the justices decide to bar nationwide injunctions. Louisiana's congressional map In a pair of cases arising out of Louisiana's attempt to draw House districts, the Supreme Court is weighing whether to leave in place a new congressional map that includes a second majority-Black district. The map was first drawn by state Republican lawmakers after the 2020 Census but has since been ensnared in years of legal wrangling. The latest version, now before the Supreme Court, was drawn after a federal district judge invalidated the first redistricting plan as a likely violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because it diluted Black voting strength. That judge ordered the state to put a remedial plan in place that had two majority-Black congressional districts, and state GOP lawmakers ultimately approved a map with that makeup. But the second iteration of the voting boundaries were struck down by a divided three-judge district court panel, which concluded the map was an unlawful racial gerrymander. The dispute demonstrates the challenges state lawmakers face when trying to balance compliance with the Voting Rights Act without relying too much on race during the drawing of political lines, which can violate the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. Parental opt-outs from school lessons with LGBTQ themes In the case known as Mahmoud v. Taylor, the justices are considering whether a Maryland school district unconstitutionally burdened parents' First Amendment right to exercise their religion freely when it requires their children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality that violates the families' religious beliefs. The dispute arose after the Montgomery County Board of Education introduced "LGBTQ-inclusive" storybooks for elementary school students into its English Language Arts curriculum in 2022. The board initially allowed parents to opt their children out of reading and instruction that involved the storybooks, but in March 2023, the board said parents would no longer be able to have their kids excused. With more than 160,000 students, Montgomery County is home to Maryland's largest public school system. A group of families sued the Board of Education, arguing that denial of the notice and opt-outs violated their right to exercise their religion freely under the First Amendment because it overrode their freedom to direct the religious upbringing of their children. The Supreme Court appeared sympathetic to the parents during oral arguments in March and seemed inclined to require that public schools give parents the ability to opt their children out of instruction featuring the books. Defunding Planned Parenthood South Carolina moved to withhold state Medicaid funds from a Planned Parenthood affiliate in the state in 2018, kicking off the protracted legal battle now before the Supreme Court. The state's attempt to defund Planned Parenthood stemmed from an executive order signed by Gov. Henry McMaster that directed South Carolina's health department to deem abortion providers unqualified to provide family-planning services through Medicaid and terminate enrollment agreements. The organization and Julie Edwards, a Planned Parenthood patient, then filed a lawsuit challenging the termination decision, alleging that it violated Edwards' right to choose her provider under the Medicaid Act. The question before the Supreme Court is technical: whether Medicaid beneficiaries can sue over a state's decision to exclude their chosen provider from their Medicaid programs. If the Supreme Court finds that Medicaid recipients do not have the right to sue, it would limit patients' ability to enforce a provision of the Medicaid Act that allows them to seek care from the qualified and willing provider of their choosing. The high court heard oral argument in April and appeared divided on the issue. Age verification for pornographic websites Texas enacted a law in 2023 that requires pornography websites to confirm that visitors are at least 18 years old or face civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day. Texas is one of at least 19 states with age-verification laws on the books, which their defenders say are aimed at protecting children from accessing sexual content on the internet. But free speech organizations and trade groups representing the adult entertainment industry argue that these laws burden adults' access to content they are legally allowed to consume in violation of the First Amendment. The issue before the Supreme Court in the case known as Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton is whether a federal appeals court applied the correct standard of judicial review when it evaluated Texas' age-verification law. The U.S. Court of Appeals applied what's known as rational-basis review, the least stringent level. But the trade groups and the Biden administration said that the court should've applied the most demanding standard of review, strict scrutiny, because the age-verification law impedes adults' access to constitutionally protected speech. The challengers asked the Supreme Court to find that the requirement is subject to strict-scrutiny, and that it cannot satisfy that test. Texas has been able to enforce the age-verification measure while the case proceeds. Even if the Supreme Court rules that the 5th Circuit applied the wrong standard of review, it could order additional proceedings and allow the law to remain in effect while they play out. The fate of the FCC's Universal Service Fund This pair of cases before the Supreme Court involves the Federal Communications Commission's Universal Service Fund, a federal program that aims to expand phone and internet access to underserved communities. The fund is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company, which determines the amount telecommunications carriers must contribute to it and disburses that money to program beneficiaries. Contribution fees are based on a percentage of carriers' revenue, and companies often pass on those costs to consumers. The cases give the high court the chance to revive the nondelegation doctrine, a long-dormant legal principle that says Congress cannot delegate its legislative authority to executive branch agencies. The Supreme Court last invoked the nondelegation doctrine in 1935. A conservative organization called Consumers' Research challenged the legality of the Universal Service Fund in 2022, arguing that Congress unconstitutionally delegated its legislative authority to the FCC, which in turn transferred power to the fund's administrator. But after arguments in March, the Supreme Court appeared likely to reject the challenge and uphold the Universal Service Fund. Health and Human Services' preventive care task force The case Kennedy v. Braidwood Management involves the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, an entity within the Department of Health and Human Services that recommends the preventive-care services that must be covered by insurance plans without cost-sharing under the Affordable Care Act. Among the preventive services recommended by the task force are screenings for lung, cervical and colorectal cancers, as well as diabetes; statin medications to reduce the risk of heart disease and stroke; and medication to prevent HIV, known as PrEP. The task force's recommendation in 2019 that PrEP be covered by insurance plans at no-cost to patients gave rise to the dispute before the Supreme Court. A group of four individuals and two small businesses filed a lawsuit claiming that the Task Force's members were unconstitutionally appointed, rendering its recommendations invalid. The plaintiffs argued that the task force's structure violates the Constitution's Appointments Clause because it is composed of principal officers who must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. But the Biden administration and now the Trump administration said the members of the panel are inferior officers subject to supervision by the Health and Human Services secretary, and therefore do not require nomination by the president and Senate approval. If the Supreme Court finds that task force members are inferior officers, it could send the case back to the appeals court to decide whether Congress gave the head of the Health and Human Services Department the authority to appoint them. Indeed, several days after the court heard arguments in the case, the Supreme Court asked the two sides to file additional briefs addressing that issue.
