Appeals court rules Trump must reinstate teacher preparation grants in eight states
A federal appeals court Friday refused the Trump administration's request to lift a judge's order that officials reinstate teacher preparation grants in eight Democratic-led states that sued.
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to put the ruling on hold after the administration warned it will allow the states to immediately draw down $65 million the government can't recover if the legal challenge ultimately fails.
'The States convincingly explain that this is simply not the case, in part because recipients submit reimbursement requests for expenses already incurred. And, in fact, the Department has not pointed to any evidence of any attempt at any such a withdrawal by any recipient,' wrote U.S. Circuit Judge William Kayatta.
The Justice Department previously signaled it was prepared to take the case to the high court.
President Trump has publicly called for the elimination of the Education Department and signed an executive order Thursday aimed at gutting it.
The lawsuit concerns two of the department's grant programs the Trump administration terminated in February: the Teacher Quality Partnership Program and the Supporting Effective Educator Development Program. Both support teacher development.
Coalitions comprising three private education groups and eight Democratic state attorneys general separately sued over the terminations, claiming they violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Trump administration appealed to the 1st Circuit after U.S. District Judge Myong Joun, an appointee of former President Biden who serves in Boston and oversees the states' challenge, ordered the administration to reinstate grant funding in the eight states until the next stage of the case.
The 1st Circuit panel comprised Kayatta, an appointee of former President Obama; U.S. Circuit Judge Gustavo Gelpí, a Biden appointee; and U.S. Circuit Judge Lara Montecalvo, another Biden appointee.
The states had urged the panel to not intervene, noting that such temporary orders are not normally appealable and that Joun has scheduled another hearing for March 28 on whether to grant a longer injunction.
The appeals panel said it agreed to 'sidestep' that argument at this stage of the case.
The Justice Department this week suggested they were prepared to seek an emergency intervention from the Supreme Court if the 1st Circuit didn't intervene, warning that the judge's ruling was 'riddled with factual and legal errors.'
'The district court dismissed the government's interest on the theory that Congress had appropriated funds for these purposes—but Congress did not specify these specific grants in its appropriation. That is a core matter of executive discretion, and a single district judge has now usurped the power to set education policy priorities,' the Justice Department wrote in court filings.
In the other lawsuit, a judge has separately ordered grant funds owed to the education groups and their members be reinstated. That order also states the administration cannot terminate any more of the grant awards 'in a manner this court has determined is likely unlawful.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
With troops in Los Angeles, echoes of the Kent State massacre
Ohio National Guard members with gas masks and rifles advance toward Kent State University students during an anti-war protest on May 4, 1970. More than a dozen students were killed or injured when the guard opened fire. (.) This article was originally published by The Trace. Earlier in June, President Donald Trump deployed thousands of National Guard troops and Marines to quell anti-deportation protests and secure federal buildings in downtown Los Angeles. The move, some historians say, harks back 55 years to May 4, 1970, when Ohio's Republican governor summoned the National Guard to deal with students demonstrating against the Vietnam War at Kent State University. Guard members were ordered to fire over the students' heads to disperse the crowd, but some couldn't hear because they were wearing gas masks. The troops fired at the students instead, killing four and wounding another nine. The shooting served as a cautionary tale about turning the military on civilians. 'Dispatching California National Guard troops against civilian protesters in Los Angeles chillingly echoes decisions and actions that led to the tragic Kent State shooting,' Brian VanDeMark, author of the book 'Kent State: An American Tragedy,' wrote this week for The Conversation. We asked VanDeMark, a history professor at the United States Naval Academy, more about the parallels between 1970 and today. His interview has been edited for length and clarity. After the Kent State shooting, it became taboo for presidents or governors to even consider authorizing military use of force against civilians. Is the shadow of Kent State looming over Los Angeles? VanDeMark: For young people today, 55 years ago seems like a very long time. For the generation that came of age during the '60s and were in college during that period, Kent State is a defining event, shaping their views of politics and the military. There are risks inherent in deploying the military to deal with crowds and protesters. At Kent State, the county prosecutor warned the governor that something terrible could happen if he didn't shut down the campus after the guard's arrival. The university's administration did not want the guard brought to campus because they understood how provocative that would be to student protesters who were very anti-war and anti-military. It's like waving a red flag in front of a bull. The military is not trained or equipped to deal well with crowd control. It is taught to fight and kill, and to win wars. California Governor Gavin Newsom has said that deploying the guard to Los Angeles is inflammatory. What do you fear most about this new era of domestic military deployment? People's sense of history probably goes back five or 10 years rather than 40 or 50. That's regrettable. The people making these decisions — I can't unpack their motivation or perceptions — but I think their sense of history in terms of the dangers inherent in deploying U.S. troops to deal with street protests is itself a problem. There are parallels between Kent State and Los Angeles. There are protesters throwing bottles at police and setting fires. The Ohio governor called the Kent State protesters dissidents and un-American; President Trump has called the Los Angeles demonstrators insurrectionists, although he appears to have walked that back. What do you make of these similarities? The parallels are rather obvious. The general point I wish to make, without directing it at a particular individual, is that the choice of words used to describe a situation has consequences. Leaders have positions of responsibility and authority. They have a responsibility to try to keep the situation under control. Are officers today more apt to use rubber bullets and other so-called less-lethal rounds than in 1970? Even though these rounds do damage, they're less likely to kill. Could that save lives today? Most likely, yes. In 1970, the guard members at Kent State, all they had were tear gas canisters and assault rifles loaded with live ammunition. Lessons have been learned between 1970 and today, and I'm almost certain that the California National Guard is equipped with batons, plastic shields, and other tools that give them a range of options between doing nothing and killing someone. I've touched one of the bullets used at Kent State. It was five and a half inches long. You can imagine the catastrophic damage that can inflict on the human body. Those bullets will kill at 1,000 yards, so the likelihood that the military personnel in Los Angeles have live ammunition is very remote. Trump authorized the deployment of federal troops not only to Los Angeles but also to wherever protests are 'occurring or are likely to occur,' leading to speculation that the presence of troops will become permanent. Was that ever a consideration in the '60s and '70s, or are we in uncharted waters here? In the 1960s and early 1970s, presidents of both parties were very reluctant to deploy military forces against protests. Has that changed? Apparently it has. I personally believe that the military being used domestically against American citizens, or even people living here illegally, is not the answer. Generally speaking, force is not the answer. The application of force is inherently unpredictable. It's inherently uncontrollable. And very often the consequences of using it are terrible human suffering. Before the Kent State shooting, the assumption by most college-aged protesters was that there weren't physical consequences to engaging in protests. Kent State demonstrated otherwise. In Los Angeles, the governor, the mayor, and all responsible public officials have essentially said they will not tolerate violence or the destruction of property. I think that most of the protesters are peaceful. What concerns me is the small minority who are unaware of our history and don't understand the risks of being aggressive toward the authorities. In Los Angeles, we have not just the guard but also the Marines. Marines, as you mentioned, are trained to fight wars. What's the worst that could happen here? People could get killed. I don't know what's being done in terms of defining rules of engagement, but I assume that the Marines have explicitly been told not to load live ammunition in their weapons because that would risk violence and loss of life. I don't think that the guard or the Marines are particularly enthusiastic about having to apply coercive force against protesters. Their training in that regard is very limited, and their understanding of crowd psychology is probably very limited. The crowd psychology is inherently unpredictable and often nonlinear. If you don't have experience with crowds, you may end up making choices based on your lack of experience that are very regrettable. Some people are imploring the Marines and guard members to refuse the orders and stay home. You interviewed guard members who were at Kent State. Do you think the troops deployed to Los Angeles will come to regret it? Very often, and social science research has corroborated this, when authorities respond to protests and interact with protesters in a respectful fashion, that tends to have a calming effect on the protesters' behavior. But that's something learned through hard experience, and these Marines and guard members don't have that experience. The National Guard was deployed in Detroit in 1967; Washington, D.C. in 1968; Los Angeles in 1965 and 1992; and Minneapolis and other cities in 2020 after the murder of George Floyd. Have the Marines ever been deployed? Or any other military branch? Yes. In 1992, in the wake of the Rodney King controversy, the California governor at the time, a Republican named Pete Wilson, asked President George H.W. Bush to deploy not only the guard but also the Marines to deal with street riots in Los Angeles. That's the last time it was done. And how did that go? I'm not an expert on this, but I assure you that the senior officers who commanded those Marines made it very clear that they were not to discharge their weapons without explicit permission from the officers themselves, and they were probably told not to load their weapons with live ammunition. In 1967, during the Detroit riots, the Michigan National Guard was called out to the streets of Detroit. When the ranking senior officer arrived, he ordered the soldiers to remove their bullets from their rifles. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Chart: Hundreds of gigawatts of clean energy at risk with GOP bill
See more from Canary Media's "Chart of the week' column. Amid rising power bills and surging energy demand, Republicans in Congress are set to undermine the country's primary source of new electricity — clean energy. The 'Big Beautiful Bill' passed in May by House Republicans and now being considered by the Senate would rapidly phase out key clean-energy tax credits, casting uncertainty over more than 600 gigawatts' worth of solar, battery, and wind projects slated to come online in 2028 or later, according to new analysis from research firm Cleanview. To be fair, the 600-GW figure is based on what's currently in the interconnection queue, and a good number of those projects won't get built regardless of the fate of the tax credits. (Projects often drop out of the queue for all kinds of reasons.) But if the bill kneecaps even a fraction of what's anticipated, it will have serious consequences for the U.S. energy system. For context, the entirety of the U.S. had a generating capacity of around 1,200 gigawatts at the end of 2023. The current version of the legislation would rapidly phase out federal tax credits that encourage clean energy development. As it stands, developers would be eligible for the tax credit only if their projects begin construction within 60 days of the bill's passage and if they come online before the end of 2028. That puts the 318 GW worth of projects planned to be completed in 2029 and later at explicit risk of losing their tax-credit eligibility. It also jeopardizes 2028 projects that either can't break ground with just two months' notice or which might hit snags that push their completion into 2029. That doesn't necessarily mean those projects would be cancelled, but it would scramble their economics, which were calculated under an entirely different set of policy assumptions. It's near certain that some would fall through. Many more would be delayed as developers hash out new financial terms — read: higher power prices that will be passed onto consumers. A slowdown in clean energy construction is the exact opposite of what the moment demands. These days, when a new energy project is built in the U.S., more than nine times out of 10 it is a solar, battery, or wind installation. That's not an exaggeration. In 2024, solar, batteries, and wind made up 93% of new energy resources. The year before that, it was 94%. Meanwhile, construction of new large-scale fossil-gas power plants is constrained by turbine shortages that are unlikely to ease in the near term. At the same time, electricity demand is surging and expected to climb even higher in coming years as the development of AI sets off a race to construct power-hungry data centers. If congressional Republicans pass a bill that stifles solar, batteries, and wind, study after study predicts the same outcome: higher energy bills — and more planet-warming emissions.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ohio anti-hunger advocates urge U.S. Senators to reject SNAP changes
The Mid-Ohio Food Collective. (Photo by Nick Evans, Ohio Capital Journal.) Ohioans on the front-line fighting hunger are urging the state's U.S. Senators to change the budget reconciliation package passed by the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill makes dramatic changes to the food stamps program, known as SNAP, placing a substantial new burden on states. It comes at a moment when food banks and pantries say they're stretched to the breaking point. 'We're the richest nation on earth,' Grace Church pastor and Mid-Ohio Food Collective Board Member Michael Young said Thursday. 'This issue of feeding people should not be this difficult or this hard,' he continued, '(There) should not be many decisions to make when we're talking about putting food on people's table — it is a moral obligation.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The congressional Republican spending plan — President Trump's 'big beautiful bill' — would make significant changes to how we pay for the country's primary food assistance program. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program has always been fully funded by the federal government, with states pitching in to cover half of administrative costs. Ohio participants received $3.55 billion in benefits during the 2023 federal fiscal year. Now, Republicans in Congress want to shift some of that cost to states for the first time in the program's history. In the U.S. House, lawmakers proposed states pick up 15%-25% of the total. The U.S. Senate walked that back, but still wants many states to pitch in, tying it to how accurately a state determines eligibility and benefit amounts, called error rates. Under the U.S. Senate plan, those with error rates below 6% would pay nothing, while states with error rates above 10% would pay for 15% of their food assistance benefits. Ohio food banks are serving more people than ever, budget would maintain funding at 2019 levels According to the Food Research and Access Center, Ohio's 2023 error rate would put it in the bucket of states paying for 5% of their SNAP benefits. Back of the envelope math, that would put Ohio on the hook for about $178 million. In addition to covering a portion of benefits, the proposal asks states to cover three quarters of administrative costs and imposes more stringent work requirements. If the current state budget process offers any indication those figures are a nonstarter. During the last budget cycle Ohio lawmakers gave food banks an extra $7.5 million on top of the $24.5 million base appropriation they've received since 2019. But this year, lawmakers zeroed out that supplemental funding, arguing it was always meant to be a one-time thing. Food banks argued they're getting more traffic than ever, and argued at the very least, lawmakers should give them a $5 million increase to account for inflation. Lawmakers didn't budge. In Grove City on Thursday, representatives from Ohio's food assistance network warned the state simply can't absorb the SNAP reductions Congress is considering. Standing in front of wall of glass wall looking out on their warehouse, Mid-Ohio Food Collective President and CEO Matt Habash, bragged they have 'three football fields of storage' and serve people in need 'from Marysville clear to the Ohio River.' 'But as impressive as Mid-Ohio Food Bank is,' he said, 'It's never been our community's best our biggest weapon against hunger. That, my friends, is SNAP.' Habash argued the program is the 'first line of defense' against hunger and a 'lifeline' to low-income seniors, children, and people with disabilities. He warned pushing benefit costs onto states would 'end SNAP as we know it.' 'This cost shift would force impossible decisions by our state leaders to raise taxes or cut essential services all while hunger increases,' he said. 'These cuts will do the most harm to the most vulnerable neighbors.' 'The meals that go missing,' he added, 'will be far more than our hunger relief network could ever possibly provide.' Habash urged Ohioans to contact the state's Republican U.S. Sens. Bernie Moreno and Jon Husted. The Ohio Capital Journal contacted both senator's offices for comment about the SNAP plan. Neither responded. Jamie Trout, executive director of Eastside Community Ministry in Zanesville, heads up the biggest food pantry in Muskingum County. Over the last three years, she explained, they've seen visitors triple, while the cost of groceries has spiked. 'To try to wrap my mind around the amount of people that will be coming for our services if the SNAP benefits are cut,' she said, 'I just don't see how we would sustain that.' Ohio Association of Foodbanks Executive Director Joree Novotny added that SNAP benefits wind up helping the local economy as well as hungry families. Food assistance dollars get spent at local grocery stores and farmers markets. In economic downturns, that cash influx provides a backstop for some businesses. 'The state of Ohio cannot absorb hundreds of millions of dollars in new spending,' she said of the cost sharing plan. '(Ohio) would either have to increase taxes to raise revenue, cut other essential services, or risk losing billions of dollars every year in economic activity that supports Ohio retailers, agribusinesses and neighbors.' She called the plan 'unsustainable' and 'unrealistic,' and urged Ohio's congressional delegation to reject those provisions. 'A hungry child cannot learn, a hungry worker cannot earn, and a hungry senior is not healthy,' she said. Follow Ohio Capital Journal Reporter Nick Evans on X or on Bluesky. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
