Trump cannot proceed with gutting US Education Department, court rules
By Nate Raymond
BOSTON (Reuters) -A federal appeals court on Wednesday declined to lift a judge's order blocking President Donald Trump's administration from carrying out his executive order to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education and requiring it to reinstate employees who were terminated in a mass layoff.
The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration's request to put on hold an injunction issued by a lower-court judge at the urging of several Democratic-led states, school districts and teachers' unions.
The U.S. Department of Justice had asked for a swift ruling from the 1st Circuit so that it could promptly take the case up to the 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court if the appeals court did not rule in its favor.
But Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron, writing for a panel of three judges who were all appointed by Democratic presidents, said a stay was not warranted given the extensive findings a trial judge made about the impact mass firings at the department would have on its ability to function.
"What is at stake in this case, the district court found, was whether a nearly half-century-old cabinet department would be permitted to carry out its statutorily assigned functions or prevented from doing so by a mass termination of employees aimed at implementing the effective closure of that department," he said.
The Education Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The lawsuits were filed after Secretary of Education Linda McMahon in March announced plans to carry out a mass termination of over 1,300 employees, which would cut the department's staff by half as part of what it said was its "final mission."
Those job cuts were announced a week before Trump signed an executive order calling for the department's closure, following a campaign promise to conservatives aimed at leaving school policy almost entirely in the hands of states and local school boards.
Trump later announced plans to transfer the department's student loan portfolio to the Small Business Administration and its special education, nutrition, and related services to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
In combination with 600 employees who took buyout offers, the Education Department said the job cuts once implemented would leave it with 2,183 workers, down from 4,133 when Trump took office on January 20.
Affected employees were placed on administrative leave on March 21 and were told they would continue receiving full pay and benefits until June 9. The administration argued the cuts were a lawful effort to streamline the agency and cut bloat.
But U.S. District Judge Myong Joun on May 22 concluded that the job cuts were in fact an effort by the administration to shut down the department without the necessary approval of Congress, which created the agency in 1979.
The Education Department subsequently notified those employees about the judge's ruling in an effort to comply with it.
The administration also appealed, saying that while Trump has made no secret of his desire to abolish the department, his administration understood that only Congress could do so and that the case ultimately concerned a personnel action.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
38 minutes ago
Judge says administration can dismantle the Institute of Museum and Library Services
WASHINGTON -- A federal judge on Friday denied a request by the American Library Association to halt the Trump administration's further dismantling of an agency that funds and promotes libraries across the country, saying that recent court decisions suggested his court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon had previously agreed to temporarily block the Republican administration, saying that plaintiffs were likely to show that Trump doesn't have the legal authority to unilaterally shutter the Institute of Museum and Library Services, which was created by Congress. But in Friday's ruling, Leon wrote that as much as the 'Court laments the Executive Branch's efforts to cut off this lifeline for libraries and museums,' recent court decisions suggested that the case should be heard in a separate court dedicated to contractual claims. He cited the Supreme Court's decision allowing the administration to cut hundreds of millions of dollars in teacher-training money despite a lower court order barring the cuts, saying that cases seeking reinstatement of federal grants should be heard in the Court of Federal Claims. The American Library Association and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees filed a lawsuit to stop the administration from gutting the institute after President Donald Trump signed a March 14 executive order that refers to it and several other federal agencies as 'unnecessary.' The agency's appointed acting director then placed many agency staff members on administrative leave, sent termination notices to most of them, began canceling grants and contracts and fired all members of the National Museum and Library Services Board. The institute has roughly 75 employees and issued more than $266 million in grants last year. However, a Rhode Island judge's order prohibiting the government from shutting down the museum and library services institute in a separate case brought by several states remains in place. The administration is appealing that order as well.
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown
As President Donald Trump's administration targets states and local governments for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, lawmakers in some Democratic-led states are intensifying their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting such cooperation. In California alone, more than a dozen pro-immigrant bills passed either the Assembly or Senate this week, including one prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration officials into nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant. Other state measures have sought to protect immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters, even as Trump's administration has ramped up arrests as part of his plan for mass deportations. In Connecticut, legislation pending before Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont would expand a law that already limits when law enforcement officers can cooperate with federal requests to detain immigrants. Among other things, it would let 'any aggrieved person' sue municipalities for alleged violations of the state's Trust Act. Two days after lawmakers gave final approval to the measure, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security included Connecticut on a list of hundreds of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. States split on whether to aid or resist Trump Since taking office in January, Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the U.S. illegally and detain them for potential deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement now lists 640 such cooperative agreements, a nearly fivefold increase under Trump. Trump also has lifted longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools, churches and hospitals, and ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials believed to be interfering with his crackdown on illegal immigration. The Department of Justice sued Colorado, Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey, alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws. Just three weeks after Colorado was sued, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed a wide-ranging law expanding the state's protections for immigrants. Among other things, it bars jails from delaying the release of inmates for immigration enforcement and allows penalties of up to $50,000 for public schools, colleges, libraries, child care centers and health care facilities that collect information about people's immigration status, with some exceptions. Polis rejected the administration's description of Colorado as a 'sanctuary state,' asserting that law officers remain 'deeply committed' to working with federal authorities on criminal investigations. 'But to be clear, state and local law enforcement cannot be commandeered to enforce federal civil immigration laws,' Polis said in a bill-signing statement. Illinois also has continued to press pro-immigrant legislation. A bill recently given final approval says no child can be denied a free public education because of immigration status — something already guaranteed nationwide under a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision. Supporters say the state legislation provides a backstop in case court precedent is overturned. The bill also requires schools to develop policies on handling requests from federal immigration officials and allows lawsuits for alleged violations of the measure. Legislation supporting immigrants takes a variety of forms Democratic-led states are pursuing a wide range of means to protect immigrants. A new Oregon law bars landlords from inquiring about the immigration status of tenants or applicants. New laws in Washington declare it unprofessional conduct for bail bond agents to enforce civil immigration warrants, prohibit employers from using immigration status to threaten workers and let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings for themselves or family members. Vermont last month repealed a state law that let law enforcement agencies enter into immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities during state or national emergencies. They now need special permission from the governor to do so. As passed by the House, Maryland legislation also would have barred local governments from reaching immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. That provision was removed in the Senate following pushback from some of the seven Maryland counties that currently have agreements. The final version, which took effect as law at the start of June, forbids public schools and libraries from granting federal immigration authorities access to nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant or 'exigent circumstances.' Maryland Del. Nicole Williams said residents' concerns about Trump's immigration policies prompted her to sponsor the legislation. 'We believe that diversity is our strength, and our role as elected officials is to make sure that all of the residents within our community — regardless of their background — feel safe and comfortable,' Williams said. Many new measures reinforce existing policies Though legislation advancing in Democratic states may shield against Trump's policies, 'I would say it's more so to send a message to immigrant communities to let them know that they are welcome,' said Juan Avilez, a policy associate at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. In California, a law that took effect in 2018 already requires public schools to adopt policies 'limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible.' Some schools have readily applied the law. When DHS officers attempted a welfare check on migrant children at two Los Angeles elementary schools in April, they were denied access by both principals. Legislation passed by the state Senate would reinforce such policies by specifically requiring a judicial warrant for public schools to let immigration authorities into nonpublic areas, allow students to be questioned or disclose information about students and their families. 'Having ICE in our schools means that you'll have parents who will not want to send their kids to school at all,' Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener said in support of the bill. But some Republicans said the measure was 'injecting partisan immigration policies' into schools. 'We have yet to see a case in California where we have scary people in masks entering schools and ripping children away,' said state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil. 'Let's stop these fear tactics that do us an injustice.' ___ Associated Press writers Susan Haigh, Trân Nguyễn, Jesse Bedayn, John O'Connor and Brian Witte contributed to this report.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Will a ‘No Kings' anti-Trump protest take place next week in Bellingham?
Dozens of protests are scheduled across the country on June 14 to coincide with a pricey military parade in Washington, D.C. The 'No Kings Day' protests will take place on Donald Trump's birthday as he throws a military parade with an estimated cost of $25 to $40 million, according to Politico. The protests against Trump are part of a national movement that has been gathering steam since his Jan. 20 inauguration. 'This is bigger than political disagreement,' notes a statement by organizers on their No Kings toolkit page. 'They've defied our courts, deported American citizens, disappeared people off the streets, and slashed our services x— all while orchestrating a massive giveaway to their billionaire allies.' The June 14 military parade has been framed as a celebration of the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary of its founding. It is also Trump's 79th birthday. A festival at the National Mall will follow. Flights into Washington, D.C. will be halted during the event, according to multiple media reports. There have been multiple other events and celebrations for the Army so far this year, but nothing is advertised beyond June 14. Reactions to the parade have been very mixed, with some criticizing the optics, given the timing with Trump's birthday. 'Prior presidents have used military regalia to celebrate or mark other moments,' noted historian Joshua Zeitz, contributing editor at Politico Magazine in an interview with NPR. 'There are obviously military ceremonies that happen, for instance, at Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day. There's a military presence at inaugurations. But that's very different from what we're doing here. This is something that you would expect to see in countries like North Korea or the old Soviet Union or today's Russia.' The 'No Kings' event that is also on June 14 is a direct response to the parade in D.C. Organized by grassroots organizations Indivisible, 50501 and Stand Up America, there are about 1,500 protest rallies planned across the U.S. 'Join us to reject Trump's authoritarian vision and to show the wanna-be king what democracy looks like,' note Indivisible organizers on their website. There is no telling how many people will attend, but similar anti-Trump protests on April 19 under the 5051 banner drew 3 million people nationwide, by Newsweek's estimate. Washington state has around six dozen No Kings protests scheduled for June 14. You can search locations in this interactive map. Here are the protest locations in Bellingham and Whatcom County: Bellingham No Kings protest, 210 Lottie St., Bellingham (in front of Bellingham City Hall) from 3 to 6 p.m. Everson No Kings protest, 210 Main St., Everson (on the sidewalk by Everson Market) from noon to 2 p.m.
