Judge Rejects Corporation For Public Broadcasting's Motion To Block Donald Trump From Removing Board Members
A federal judge on Sunday declined to issue an order to prohibit Donald Trump from removing three board members of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as the administration seeks to zero out funding for public media stations, PBS and NPR.
U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss wrote that the CPB had failed to meet the threshold to issue a preliminary injunction to halt Trump's effort to remove Sony's Tom Rothman, as well as Laura Ross and Diane Kaplan.
More from Deadline
ABC News Suspends Terry Moran Over X Post That Called Trump Official Stephen Miller A "World-Class Hater"
'60 Minutes' Correspondent Scott Pelley Says Trump Lawsuit Settlement & Apology Would Be "Very Damaging" To Reputation Of CBS And Paramount
Trump Deploys 2,000 Troops To L.A. As Backlash & Protests To ICE Raids Surge; POTUS Action "Purposefully Inflammatory," Newsom Warns
But Moss' ruling does not mean that Trump will be able to wrest control of the board. The judge also cautioned that Trump could not unilaterally appoint their replacements, and noted that the corporation had recently changed its bylaws that restricts the president's actions.
Moss wrote, 'Although the case presents important questions regarding the status of the Corporation and its relationship with the federal government, the Court must leave those questions for another day. For present purposes and on the present record, it is enough to conclude that Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of demonstrating that they are likely to prevail on the merits of their claim for injunctive relief or that Plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief.'
Read the judge's public broadcasting decision.
The CPB is the nonprofit corporation set up by Congress to distribute funds to public media, largely radio and TV stations.
The CPB sued the Trump administration in April, after three board members got notices that they were being removed. The CPB cited the Public Broadcasting Act, which forbids 'any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States' from exercising 'any direction, supervision, or control over . . . the Corporation.'
PBS and NPR have filed their own lawsuits against the Trump administration over the president's executive order to restrict further funding for their networks.
Rothman, Ross and Kaplan were among the five current board members of the CPB. There are four vacancies. The board members are appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Moss, an appointee of President Barack Obama, wrote that one of the arguments presented by CPB lawyers was 'novel,' that removal of a board member also required Senate approval. CPB attorneys also argued that the president was an 'officer' of the United States, and therefore was restricted from exercising control over the corporation.
Moss write that he need not resolve that question here. For present purposes, the Court can assume (as seems likely) that Congress intended to preclude the President (or any subordinate officials acting at his direction) from directing, supervising, or controlling the Corporation. But Congress did provide the President with appointment power, and that authority carries with it at least some ability to influence the affairs of the Corporation.'
The judge cautioned that Trump cannot just install replacement board members.
He wrote that 'the President is not free to remove directors and then unilaterally to appoint their replacements, thereby using his power to remove as an effective tool for altering Board policy. Rather, the President's appointment authority is tempered by the requirement that he proceed only with the advice and consent of the Senate.'
He added, It is unlikely, moreover, 'that the President can shortcut this process by filling vacancies on an interim basis. To start, if the Corporation is private entity, as Plaintiffs posit, the directors are not 'officers' of the United States, and it is thus doubtful that the President could fill a vacancy in any manner other than that prescribed in the statute, in the D.C. Nonprofit Corporation Act, or in the Corporation's articles of incorporation or bylaws. The PBA is consistent with that premise and provides that '[a]ny vacancy in the Board . . . shall be filled in the manner consistent with' the Act.'
After a court hearing in the case last month, the CPB board changed its bylaws to try to put further safeguards on its independence. The new bylaws read, 'No Director may be removed from the Board by any person or authority, including the President of the United States, without a two-thirds vote of the other Directors confirming such removal. In the event the Corporation's President appoints one or more members of the Designated Body, such members may not be removed from the Designated Body by any person or authority, including the President of the United States, without a two-thirds vote of the other Directors and serving members of the Designated Body confirming such removal.'
Perhaps more urgent for public media advocates is a pending congressional vote on whether the $535 million in annual federal funding to public broadcasting should be clawed back.
The White House last week sent a package to Capitol Hill to rescind the funding for CPB in fiscal year 2026 and 2027. The corporation gets an advanced appropriation from Congress, so the money for those years already was allocated.
More to come.
Best of Deadline
2025 TV Series Renewals: Photo Gallery
2025 TV Cancellations: Photo Gallery
'Stick' Soundtrack: All The Songs You'll Hear In The Apple TV+ Golf Series
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
15 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Miami commissioners cautious with answers on whether they'll vote for ICE agreement
South Florida's largest city could deputize its police officers with immigration enforcement powers later this week, adding to a growing sense of uncertainty in the region as the Trump administration carries out its full-forced crackdown on immigration. On Thursday, the Miami City Commission is scheduled to vote to enter into what's known as a 287(g) agreement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The city would join the 'task force' model, which allows police officers to conduct immigration enforcement functions during routine work and to question, arrest and detain people suspected of violating immigration law. However, despite the fact that the agreement is on Thursday's meeting agenda, two city commissioners told the Miami Herald that the item might be deferred for the second time. The commission previously deferred the item in April in order to postpone the vote until after the June 3 special election to replace the late Commissioner Manolo Reyes. Commissioner Joe Carollo declined to say whether he plans to vote in favor of the agreement but said he has been monitoring the protests against ICE in Los Angeles, where Trump deployed the National Guard. Asked where he stands on the 287(g) agreement, Carollo said he's 'certainly looking carefully' at Los Angeles, which he said has 'frankly been a factor in the way that I'm gonna be going at this.' Commissioner Damian Pardo said in a statement that 'as a life long advocate for a legal path for US citizenship and a supporter of TPS, I am not in favor of 287(g).' 'Regardless of how well this plan may be implemented by local enforcement agencies, and in addition to the human rights considerations, I am very concerned with the hostile climate these policies create for immigrants,' Pardo said. He added that the city's economy is boosted by the 'inflow of business from Latin America, the Caribbean and Europe.' 'Our city has benefited enormously from our attraction as a destination to the international community,' Pardo added. 'I would argue that attraction is the 'Magic' in the Magic city. Let's keep it that way.' Both Carollo and Pardo said the item would likely be deferred. READ MORE: What the end of CHNV parole program means for a half-million migrants, many in Florida The City Commission was scheduled to take its vote on June 12, which will be the first commission meeting for newly elected District 4 Commissioner Ralph Rosado. According to voting map data, over 90% of voting-age citizens in District 4 are Hispanic, meaning Rosado's district has the largest concentration of Hispanics in the city's five voting districts. Speaking at his election night watch party last week, the freshman commissioner said he hadn't decided yet how he will vote on the 287(g) agreement. 'I've been discussing it with a number of people,' Rosado said, adding that he has 'a series of legal questions' that he wants to ask the city attorney before making a decision. Commissioner Christine King, who is also the commission chairwoman, declined to comment on the ICE agreement. Reached Monday, Commissioner Miguel Angel Gabela said he would get back to the Herald at a later time with a comment. Mayor Francis Suarez, who does not have a vote on the commission but who does have veto power, did not respond to a request asking whether he supports the city entering the 287(g) agreement. A city spokesperson said Monday that it is 'too premature' to say whether the item will be deferred. She did not directly respond to questions asking if a potential deferral was related to current events like the L.A. protests or the travel ban that went into effect Monday. Municipal and local police departments are not explicitly required to join 287(g) agreements, but Gov. Ron DeSantis and Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier have argued that under the state's sanctuary law, they are mandated to do so. Uthmeier threatened to punish Fort Myers City Council members earlier this year when they declined to enroll in the program. Still, most Miami-Dade cities, including Miami Beach and Miami Gardens, have yet to join the program, according to ICE's database for participating agencies. Entering the 287(g) agreement could have a major impact in Miami, where about 58% of residents are foreign born and over 70% are Hispanic or Latino, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. With just under a half-million people, Miami is the largest city in Miami-Dade County and the second largest in Florida. Miami would join a list of other Miami-Dade cities that have entered 287(g) agreements in recent months, including Hialeah, Sweetwater, Coral Gables, West Miami, Sunny Isles Beach and Miami Springs. If it happens this week, the City Commission vote would land at a time of increased uncertainty for non-citizens, with the Trump administration implementing a series of immigration policies in recent weeks that have targeted communities with large populations in South Florida. In addition to Monday's travel ban, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled late last month in favor of a Trump administration plan that ended the humanitarian parole program known as CHNV, which allowed people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to legally enter the United States. The decision affects more than 500,000 migrants who were granted temporary legal status.
WIRED
15 minutes ago
- WIRED
The ‘Long-Term Danger' of Trump Sending Troops to the LA Protests
Jun 10, 2025 12:24 PM President Trump's deployment of more than 700 Marines to Los Angeles—following ICE raids and mass protests—has ignited a fierce national debate over state sovereignty and civil-military boundaries. LAPD officers and National Guard soldiers stand on patrol as demonstrators protest outside a jail in downtown Los Angeles following two days of clashes with police during a series of immigration raids on June 8, 2025. Photograph:As hundreds of United States Marines deploy in Los Angeles under presidential orders to protect federal property amid growing protests over immigration enforcement, constitutional scholars and civil rights attorneys warn of long-term implications for American democracy and civil-military relations. President Donald Trump revealed Monday that he had ordered the deployment of more than 700 activity-duty Marines out of Camp Pendleton—an extraordinary use of military force in response to civil unrest. The move, widely condemned by his critics, follows Trump's federalization of the National Guard. Some 3,800 guardsmen have since been deployed in California against the objections of its government, spurring debate among legal observers over the limits of the president's power to send troops into American streets. Trump ordered the deployments in response to thousands of Angelenos who took to the streets on Friday in protests. LA residents responded after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents carried out sweeping raids of local businesses, arresting, among others, dozens of day laborers who were vying for work outside a local Home Depot. Larger demonstrations soon formed and remained largely peaceful until residents were engaged by police with riot shields and crowd control weapons. Over the weekend, the clashes between police and protesters escalated across many neighborhoods with large immigrant populations. Numerous buildings were vandalized with anti-ICE messages, and several Waymo autonomous vehicles were set ablaze. Videos captured by protest attendees show police firing upon demonstrators with rubber bullets and other crowd control agents, including waves of asphyxiating CS gas. Members of the press shared images online showing injuries they incurred from the police assault. In widely shared footage, a Los Angeles police officer appears to intentionally target an Australian reporter, Lauren Tomasi, shooting her from feet away with a rubber bullet as she delivers a monologue into a camera. On Monday, CNN correspondent Jason Carroll was arrested live on air. California governor Gavin Newsom condemned Trump's troop deployment in posts on social media, calling the president's actions an 'unmistakable step toward authoritarianism.' His attorney general, Rob Bonata, has filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming the order violated the state's sovereignty, infringing on Newsom's authority as the California National Guard's commander in chief. In response to a request for comment, the Department of Defense referred WIRED to a US Northern Command press release detailing the deployment of Marines and National Guardsmen. Federal troops in the United States are ordinarily barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities. This rule, known as 'posse comitatus,' may be suspended, however, by a sitting president in cases of civil unrest or outright rebellion. This exception—permitted under the Insurrection Act—allows the president to deploy troops when circumstances make it 'impracticable' for state authorities to enforce federal law by 'ordinary' means. While these powers are most often invoked at the request of a state government, the president may also invoke the act when a state chooses to ignore the constitutional rights of its inhabitants—as happened multiple times in the mid-20th century, when southern states refused to desegregate schools after the Supreme Court's landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision. President Trump, however, has so far not invoked the Insurrection Act, relying instead on a theory of 'inherent authority' advanced by the US Justice Department in 1971 during the height of the anti–Vietnam War protests. This interpretation of presidential power finds that troops may be deployed in an effort to 'protect federal property and functions.' Notably—unlike the Insurrection Act—this does not permit troops to engage in activities that are generally the purview of civilian law enforcement agencies. Trump also invoked statutory power granted to him by Congress under Title 10 of the US Code, which enabled him to federalize elements of California's National Guard. These activations typically occur when guardsmen are needed to support overseas military operations, as happened routinely this century during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Domestically, however, guardsmen are not usually federalized without the agreement of a state's governor—unless the Insurrection Act has been invoked. Legal experts interviewed by WIRED offered a range of opinions on the president's authority to deploy active-duty military troops or federalize the National Guard. While most believe it is likely within Trump's power to ignore Newsom's express objections, doing so without an invocation of the Insurrection Act, they say, is a decision fraught with legal complexities that carries serious implications, from altering—perhaps permanently—the fundamental relationship between Americans, states, and the federal government, to disturbing the delicate balance between civilian governance and military power. Liza Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program, underscores the 'unprecedented' nature of Trump's approach. 'He's trying to basically exercise the powers of the Insurrection Act without invoking it,' she says. A key issue for Goitein is that the memorandum signed by Trump last week federalizing the National Guard makes no mention of Los Angeles or California. Rather, it states that the guardsmen are being mobilized to address protests that are both 'occurring' and 'likely to occur.' In essence, the memo 'authorizes the deployment of federal troops anywhere in the country,' Goitein says, 'including places where there are no protests yet. We're talking about preemptive deployment.' Goitein argues that the administration's justifications could undermine both judicial accountability and civil‑military boundaries. Under the Insurrection Act, federal troops can take on the responsibilities of local and state police. But without it, their authority should be quite limited. Neither the guardsmen nor the Marines, for instance, should engage with protesters acting peacefully, according to Goitein. 'He says they're there to protect federal property,' she says. 'But it looks a lot like quelling civil unrest.' Anthony Kuhn, a 28-year US Army veteran and managing partner at Tully Rinckey, believes, meanwhile, that there is really 'no question' that Trump would be justified in declaring a 'violent rebellion' underway in California, empowering him to ignore Newsom's objections. The images and video of protesters hurling rocks and other items at police and lighting cars on fire all serve as evidence toward that conclusion. 'I know people in California, the governor, the mayor, are trying to frame it as a protest. But at this point,' says Kuhn, 'it's a violent rebellion. You can draw your own conclusions from the pictures and videos floating around.' Kuhn argues that the intentions of the protesters, the politics fueling the demonstrations, don't matter. 'They're attacking federal facilities. They're destroying federal property. So in an attempt to restore the peace, the president has the authority under Title 10 to deploy troops. It's pretty straightforward.' In contrast, Rutgers University professor Bruce Afran says deploying military forces against Americans is 'completely unconstitutional' in the absence of a true state of domestic insurrection. 'There was an attack on ICE's offices, the doorways, there was some graffiti, there were images of protesters breaking into a guardhouse, which was empty,' he says. 'But even if it went to the point of setting a car on fire, that's not a domestic insurrection. That's a protest that is engaged in some illegality. And we have civil means to punish it without the armed forces.' Afran argues that meddling with the expectations of civilians, who naturally anticipate interacting with police but not armed soldiers, can fundamentally alter the relationship between citizens and their government, even blurring the line between democracy and authoritarianism. 'The long-term danger is that we come to accept the role of the army in regulating civilian protest instead of allowing local law enforcement to do the job,' he says. 'And once we accept that new paradigm—to use a kind of BS word—the relationship between the citizen and the government is altered forever.' 'Violent rioters in Los Angeles, enabled by Democrat governor Gavin Newsom, have attacked American law enforcement, set cars on fire, and fueled lawless chaos," Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, tells WIRED. "President Trump rightfully stepped in to protect federal law enforcement officers. When Democrat leaders refuse to protect American citizens, President Trump will always step in.' As the orders to mobilize federal troops have come down, some users on social media have urged service members to consider the orders unlawful and refuse to obey—a move that legal experts say would be very difficult to pull off. David Coombs, a lecturer in criminal procedure and military law at the University of Buffalo and a veteran of the US Army's Judge Advocate General's Corps, says it's hypothetically possible that troops could question whether Trump has the authority to mobilize state guardsmen over the objection of a state governor. 'I think ultimately the answer to that will be yes,' he says. 'But it is a gray area. When you look at the chain of command, it envisions the governor controlling all of these individuals.' Separately, says Coombs, when troops are ordered to mobilize, they could—again, hypothetically—refuse to engage in activities that are beyond the scope of the president's orders, such as carrying out immigration raids or making arrests. 'All they can do in this case, under Title 10 status, is protect the safety of federal personnel and property. If you go beyond that, then it violates the Posse Comitatus Act.' Federal troops, for instance, would need civilian police to step in. At the point, authorities want peaceful protesters to disperse. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that, in a letter on Sunday, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem requested that military troops be directed to detain alleged 'lawbreakers' during protests 'or arrest them,' which legal experts almost universally agree would be illegal under ordinary circumstances. The letter was addressed to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and accused the anti-ICE protesters of being 'violent, insurrectionist mobs' aiming to 'protect invaders and military aged males belonging to identified foreign terrorist organizations.' Khun, who warns there's a big difference between philosophizing over what constitutes an unlawful order and disobeying commands, dismisses the idea that troops, in the heat of the moment, will have an option. 'It's not going to be litigated in the middle of an actual deployment,' he says. 'There's no immediate relief, no immediate way to prove that an order is unlawful.' Khun says that were he deployed into a similar situation, 'me and my junior soldiers would not respond to a nonviolent or peaceful protest.' Asked what protesters should expect, should they engage with federal troops trained for combat overseas, Kuhn says the Marines will hold their ground more firmly than police, who are often forced to retreat as mobs approach. In addition to being armed with the same crowd control weapons, Marines are extensively trained in close-quarters combat. 'I would expect a defensive response,' he says, 'but not lethal force.' Additional reporting by Alexa O'Brien.
CNBC
16 minutes ago
- CNBC
Immigrant framed for Trump threats can be released on bond, judge says
The undocumented Mexican immigrant who was detained after being framed by a jailed inmate for threatening President Donald Trump can be released on a $7,500 bond, a Chicago Immigration Court judge ruled Tuesday morning. Judge Carla Espinoza said at a hearing that she does not believe Milwaukee resident Ramon Morales-Reyes is a danger to the community pending removal proceedings. The judge noted that although the 54-year-old Morales-Reyes has been arrested several times since 1996, he has only been convicted once, for disorderly conduct. An attorney representing the Department of Homeland Security did not oppose a request by the immigrant's lawyer, Cain Oulahan, requesting bond. Oulahan and Morales-Reyes appeared remotely, with the immigrant still detained in Dodge County Jail in Wisconsin. Espinoza said that if Morales-Reyes is unable to post bond, the next hearing in the case will be on July 10, and that she would set another date if the married dad of three is released. CNBC has requested comment from Oulahan. DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin, in a statement, said, "While this criminal illegal alien is no longer under investigation for threats against the President, he is in the country illegally with previous arrests for felony hit and run, criminal damage to property, and disorderly conduct with domestic abuse." "The Trump administration is committed to restoring the rule of law and fulfilling the President's mandate to deport illegal aliens. DHS will continue to fight for the arrest, detention, and removal of illegal aliens who have no right to be in this country," McLaughlin said. Morales-Reyes, who has lived in the United States since 1986, was arrested May 22 on suspicion that he had written three letters to law enforcement officers in Wisconsin that threatened Trump and others. A week later, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem touted Morales-Reyes' arrest in a news release that called the dishwasher an "illegal alien," and featured his photo, as well as an image of a handwritten letter threatening to shoot "your precious president" Trump. But Milwaukee police who questioned Morales-Reyes quickly realized there was a problem with the allegations against him, court records show. First, a handwriting sample Morales-Reyes provided was "completely different" from the writing on the letters and the envelopes, which bore his home address as the return address, a criminal complaint says. Also, Morales-Reyes does not speak, read, or write English fluently, while the writing in the letters was in English. When a police detective asked Morales-Reyes, "Who would want to get [him] in trouble, [he] stated that the only person who would want to get him in [trouble] was the person who had robbed him and who law enforcement knows to be the defendant, Demetric D. Scott." Scott, who is detained in Milwaukee County Jail, was arrested in late 2023 for allegedly robbing Morales-Reyes and attacking him with a box cutter. Scott, 52, told police in late May that he had written the threatening letters about Trump, and put Morales-Reyes' address on the envelopes before they were sent on his behalf by others, to get the immigrant arrested by federal authorities so that he would be unable to testify at Scott's criminal trial in July, court records state. Scott hoped that his case would be dismissed when Morales-Reyes failed to appear in court, those records say. Scott has been charged with identity theft, felony intimidation of a witness, and bail jumping in connection with the letters plot. At the time Morales-Reyes was arrested, he had applied for a special type of visa available to victims of certain crimes. The web page announcing the Morales-Reyes' arrest remains up on DHS's site, with the now discredited allegations against him. At the bottom of that page is a "disclaimer," which notes that he is no longer under investigation for threatening Trump. —
