Latest news with #2025Letter
Forbes
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
How Did The Court Block The Trump Administration Anti-DEI Directive
STAMFORD, CONNECTICUT - JULY 17: Former Small Business Administrator Linda McMahon led all ... More presidential campaign donors from Connecticut, having given $813,000 to a joint fundraising committee affiliated with her former boss, Donald Trump. (Peter Casolino/New Haven Register via Getty Images) Thursday U.S. District Court Judge Landya McCafferty blocked the Trump administration's anti-DEI directive to schools. The block applies only to public schools that work with the plaintiffs, the National Education Association, their New Hampshire affiliate, and the Center for Black Educator Development. Here's what went into the ruling. The administration policy opposing diversity, equity and inclusion policies was rolled out starting with a 'Dear Colleague' letter on February 14, the press release announcing their 'End DEI' portal on February 27, and an April 3rd message strongly suggesting that states and local school districts sign a pledge that they had a 'legal obligation' to follow the administration's interpretation of Title VI and linking that compliance to continue receiving federal funding. April 24 marked the due date for districts and states to sign. By that date, Matt Zalaznick reported for District Administration that many states, including Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland and New Hampshire had complied, while other states like Arizona were threatening individual districts that would not sign with a loss of funding. Education Week reported that 19 states said they would not sign. McCafferty's 82-page ruling opens with a pair of quotes from earlier cases to indicate the stakes of this case. Ours is a nation 'deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned.' Indeed, '[t]he Nation's future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to [a] robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth out of a multitude of tongues, [rather] than through any kind of authoritative selection.' McCafferty is quite clear on the chilling nature of the administration actions. For many schools, loss of federal funding would be crippling. It is predictable—if not obvious— that such schools will eliminate all vestiges of DEI to avoid even the possibility of funding termination. Although the 2025 Letter does not make clear what exactly it prohibits, it makes at least one thing clear: schools should not come close to anything that could be considered 'DEI,' lest they be deemed to have guessed wrong in violation of the 2025 Letter's vague and expansive prohibitions. She cites numerous examples of exactly that resultant chilling effect. The administration argues that the letter does not prohibit teachers from teaching certain books or the history of race, racism, gender, or other topics, but the court holds that assurance up against the language of the End DEI portal with its encouragement to parents to 'share the receipts of the betrayal that has happened in our public schools.' McCafferty rules that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their case, due to several factors. First, vagueness. The letter is clear on consequences ("face potential loss of federal funding") but not on the actual behaviors being prohibited. McCafferty finds the administration definition of 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' to be 'ocean-wide' and its examples are far removed from the dictionary or generally understood meanings of the words. She cites several teachers who talk about how the vagueness leaves them uncertain whether or not they may teach material such as historical imperialism or the themes in 'Heart of Darkness.' The administration argues that it is simply directing schools not to use DEI programs as cover to engage in racial harassment. Yet, McCafferty points out, they offer no explanation how DEI could be used in such a way. [T]he 2025 Letter does not define this term, but on its face it concerns a consciousness or awareness of one's race or others' races. How is it possible to engage in DEI programming that ignores race? The 2025 Letter is silent. Nor does the administration's website say it intends to end that 'cover' version of DEI, but aims to 'End DEI," not particular uses or versions of it. An FAQ doesn't help, 'clarifying' by the use of terms like 'veil discrimination policies' and 'social-emotional learning"-- terms that serve a special coded understanding for conservative anti-DEI activists, but not for those who read them in simple plain English. McCafferty rules that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on First Amendment grounds, noting that the letter 'targets speech based on viewpoint.' A professor runs afoul of the 2025 Letter if she expresses the view in her teaching that structural racism exists in America, but does not do so if she denies structural racism's existence. That is textbook viewpoint discrimination. McCafferty also sees that this is an attempt to coerce third parties to punish or suppress disfavored speech on their behalf by getting state and district officials to force teachers to stop delivering the disfavored lessons. But what is illegal directly is illegal indirectly. McCafferty further sees the plaintiffs winning on the grounds of overstepping authority by the Trump administration. By law, the Department of Education is expressly forbidden 'to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system.' By prohibiting teaching of certain concepts, the anti-DEI initiative oversteps the limits of department powers. Nor does McCafferty think the Department can hide behind calling its directive an interpretation of the law; the letter, she writes, is a legislative rule, and the obligations imposed are new. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure requires the plaintiff in a case like this to post a bond against damage that the defendants may suffer if they turn out to have been wrongfully enjoined. McCafferty orders a bond of $50. The Trump administration's anti-DEI initiative has depended on language that is plain enough on its face, but is meant to convey other layers of meaning, particularly to those involved in the culture wars. That has allowed the effect of the government simultaneously saying 'Don't teach about racial issues' and 'Of course you can teach about racial issues,' leaving educators to try to figure out where the lines are truly drawn in a game with very high professional stakes. For the moment, the court has told the Department of Education to take a step back. The Department has not yet responded to requests for comment.
CNN
25-04-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Three judges, including two Trump appointees, rule against the Department of Education's anti-DEI policy
President Donald Trump's efforts to crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion programs suffered a major legal blow Thursday as three separate judges – two of them appointed by the president – ruled against a Department of Education policy that threatened to withhold federal funding for schools engaging in DEI or incorporating race in certain ways in many other aspects of student life. The policy was first laid out in a so-called Dear Colleague letter sent to schools in February. Starting this month, schools receiving federal funding would be subject to certain certification mandates requiring that they turn over information regarding their compliance with the Trump administration's prohibitions. US District Judge Landya McCafferty said in a scathing opinion that the administration's policy, was 'textbook viewpoint discrimination,' likely violating the First Amendment's free speech protections. She and another judge, US District Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump appointee, also concluded that the policy was likely unconstitutionally vague. She also concluded that the National Education Association, the administration's opponent in the case, was likely to succeed in its arguments that the policy was unconstitutionally vague and that the agency ran afoul of procedural steps required by law in how it implemented the policy. 'The ban on DEI embodied in the 2025 Letter leaves teachers with a Hobson's Choice,' McCafferty, a Barack Obama appointee who sits in New Hampshire, wrote, noting that the educators must choose between teaching curricula that invites penalty from the federal government or risking their professional credentials by aiding the Trump policy. 'The Constitution requires more,' she wrote. Friedrich, a Trump appointee who announced her ruling after a hearing Thursday in Washington DC, said that the letter failed to 'delineate between a lawful DEI practice and an unlawful one,' making the task of reviewing compliance too difficult. The third ruling against the policy came from Judge Stephanie Gallagher, a Trump appointee who sits in Baltimore. She found that the Dear Colleague letter ran afoul of procedural requirements required by law for implementing new agency policy. 'This Court takes no view as to whether the policies at issue here are good or bad, prudent or foolish, fair or unfair,' Gallagher said in her ruling. 'But this Court is constitutionally required to closely scrutinize whether the government went about creating and implementing them in the manner the law requires. The government did not.' The rulings come after the Trump administration reached a short-term agreement with the challengers in the New Hampshire case to pause enforcement of the policy while the judge considered whether to issue a preliminary injunction. That agreement was set to expire on Thursday. Trump has waged war on DEI efforts since the start of his second term and has taken action against several elite universities, demanding changes to their DEI programs. The administration has already rolled back DEI programs, arrested international students and revoked their visas, and frozen federal funding for schools that have refused to submit to its demands. The administration froze over $2 billion in multi-year grants and contracts at Harvard University after its leaders refused to make key policy changes, including eliminating DEI programs, resulting in a clash over academic freedom, federal funding and campus oversight as Harvard sued the federal government. Policy changes were also demanded of Columbia University, though the school later announced several changes to address the Trump administration's demands, an apparent concession to the federal government. The NAACP, which filed the case in DC's federal court, said Friedrich's ruling 'is a victory for Black and Brown students across the country, whose right to an equal education has been directly threatened by this Administration's corrosive actions and misinterpretations of civil rights law.' The group representing the teachers' associations and public school district that sued over the policy in Baltimore also celebrated the ruling there. 'This ruling is a win for educators, students and communities across the nation,' Democracy Forward President and CEO Skye Perryman said. 'The nationwide injunction will pause at least part of the chaos the Trump administration is unleashing in classrooms and learning communities throughout the country.' This story has been updated with additional developments.
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
NH judge temporarily blocks Trump push to withhold school funds over DEI
A federal judge in Concord issued a ruling Thursday temporarily blocking the Trump administration from acting on threats to withhold funds from K-12 public schools that defy his orders forbidding diversity, equity and inclusion policies. The 82-page ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Landya McCafferty granting a preliminary injunction is the latest development in a lawsuit filed March 5 by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of New Hampshire, the ACLU of Massachusetts, the National Education Association, and the National Education Association–New Hampshire. Also joining the case is the Center for Black Educator Development. DEI ruling The lawsuit challenges the U.S. Department of Education's Feb. 14 'Dear Colleague' letter, which threatened federal funding cuts for schools nationwide if they engage in DEI efforts and imposed a 14-day window before 'appropriate measures' would be taken. The suit argues the Education Department overstepped its legal authority by imposing 'unfounded and vague legal restrictions' that violate due process and the First Amendment, limit academic freedom, and dictate what educators can teach and what students are allowed to learn. In her ruling, McCafferty wrote the ban on DEI embodied in the 'Dear Colleague' letter leaves teachers with a 'Hobson's choice,' defined as an apparently free choice when there is no real alternative. 'If they fail to abide by the ill-defined standards set forth in the letter, they leave themselves open to their school's decision to terminate their employment or curb their work in order to preserve essential federal funding, public ostracization based on one person's view of what 'DEI' is, or potential disciplinary proceedings that put their license at risk,' McCafferty wrote. 'But even if they endeavor to abide by the 2025 Letter's requirements, they risk failing to comply with certification requirements necessary for retention of their professional credentials. All while not being afforded a reasonable opportunity to know what the 2025 letter even requires of them. The Constitution requires more.' The lawsuit argues the Education Department has no authority to dictate curriculum or educational programs, and that federal law protects educational institutions' ability to shape their own curriculum, including programs that reflect and celebrate diversity. The preliminary injunction issued Thursday prevents the the department from enforcing the directive while litigation continues. Gilles Bissonnette, legal director of the ACLU of New Hampshire, called Thursday's ruling a victory for academic freedom, the free speech rights of educators, and for New Hampshire students who have 'a right to an inclusive education free from censorship.' 'Every student, both in the Granite State and across the country, deserves to feel seen, heard, and connected in school — and that can't happen when classroom censorship laws and policies are allowed to stand." National Education Association President Becky Pringle said the ruling allows educators and schools to 'continue to be guided by what's best for students, not by the threat of illegal restrictions and punishment.' In her ruling, McCafferty mentioned a middle school social studies teacher in New Hampshire whose classes include lessons on the American Civil War, the Reconstruction Era, and their aftermath — including discussions of race and how race and perceptions toward different racial groups has shaped American history. 'But given the 2025 letter's prohibition on teaching students that America is 'built upon' racism, this teacher now fears being accused of engaging in discrimination for doing no more than teaching historical facts,' McCafferty writes. The case will now continue as the court considers whether to permanently block the Education Department's directive. pfeely@
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Federal judge in NH blocks Trump administration's threats over DEI in schools
CONCORD — A New Hampshire federal judge has barred the U.S. Department of Education from carrying out its threats to pull federal funding from public schools that don't eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs and initiatives. Judge Landya McCafferty issued a preliminary injunction Thursday blocking the U.S. Department of Education, led by Secretary Linda McMahon, from enforcing numerous threats made to American public schools since the start of President Donald Trump's second term. The order states the U.S. Department of Education cannot enforce a February 'Dear Colleague' letter and an April federal civil rights compliance certification form, which both threaten federal funding being removed from public schools. McCafferty's order also blocks the U.S. Department of Education from taking action against any school district at the heart of any complaint made via the agency's 'End DEI' online portal, which encourages reports about 'illegal discriminatory practices at institutions of learning,' according to the website. McCafferty wrote Thursday the defendant cannot enforce any action against 'the plaintiffs, their members, and any entity that employs, contracts with, or works with one or more plaintiffs or one or more of plaintiffs' members.' "The ban on DEI embodied in the 2025 ('Dear Colleague') Letter leaves teachers with a Hobson's choice," McCafferty wrote Thursday. "If they fail to abide by the ill-defined standards set forth in the letter, they leave themselves open to (1) their school's decision to terminate their employment or curb their work in order to preserve essential federal funding, (2) public ostracization based on one person's view of what 'DEI' is, or (3) potential disciplinary proceedings that put their license at risk. But even if they endeavor to abide by the 2025 Letter's requirements, they risk failing to comply with certification requirements necessary for retention of their professional credentials. All while not being afforded a reasonable opportunity to know what the 2025 Letter even requires of them. The Constitution requires more." The Trump administration's crusade against DEI programming in American public schools took center stage in New Hampshire, as the National Education Association and the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education. The Center for Black Educator Development is another co-plaintiff, and three local school districts - the Dover, Oyster River and Somersworth school systems - make up another small group planning to sign on to the lawsuit. A hearing on the three plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction was held at the Warren G. Rudman U.S. Courthouse Concord on Thursday, April 17. Their entire request for injunction was granted Thursday with McCafferty's order. "This injunction shall take effect immediately and shall remain in effect pending further order of this court," her order adds. Sarah Hinger, a national ACLU attorney and deputy director of its Racial Justice Program, led the plaintiffs' arguments last week. She and Gilles Bissonnette, the legal director for the ACLU of New Hampshire, called McCafferty's ruling a victory for "academic freedom" in the United States. "Every student deserves an education that reflects the full diversity of our society, free from political interference,' Hinger said in a prepared statement. 'The federal government has no authority to dictate what schools can and cannot teach to serve its own agenda, and this ruling is an important step in reaffirming that.' "Every student, both in the Granite State and across the country, deserves to feel seen, heard, and connected in school - and that can't happen when classroom censorship laws and policies are allowed to stand," Bissonnette added in his own prepared statement. U.S. Department of Education attorney Abhishek Kambli indicated in the Concord courthouse last week the agency would appeal if McCafferty ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Over 160 New Hampshire public school districts — including all of SAU 50 (comprising Greenland, New Castle, Newington and Rye students) and the Hampton and Seabrook districts — all signed and submitted the certification form due Thursday, per the New Hampshire Department of Education's compliance tracker. There were several holdouts, including the Dover, Oyster River and Somersworth school districts. More: Exeter area SAU 16 board votes to sign DEI compliance order. Here's why. The New Hampshire Department of Education required all state public school districts to fill out the form by last Thursday, April 17, though the U.S. Department of Education's deadline was set for Thursday. The Exeter area SAU 16 Joint Board voted Monday to authorize Superintendent Esther Asbell to sign the federal compliance form, believing it is in compliance already. SAU 16 represents students from the Brentwood, East Kingston, Exeter, Kensington, Newfields and Stratham school districts, in addition to the Exeter Region Cooperative School District. The Portsmouth school district submitted the certification this month but rescinded it days later. SAU 52 intended to join the federal lawsuit alongside other area school districts but has dropped the plan for now. Susan Morrell, Portsmouth's city attorney, briefed the City Council on the matter Monday evening. 'The city will continue to follow this lawsuit carefully and take its own actions in regard to the certification letters that are being demanded,' Morrell said. 'If there is an injunction, we believe that we'll be protected under that umbrella, as well, even though we're not part of that lawsuit.' (This story has been updated with new information.) This article originally appeared on Portsmouth Herald: Judge in NH blocks Trump administration's threats over DEI in schools
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge blocks Trump efforts to eliminate DEI in public schools
A federal judge on Thursday blocked actions by President Trump's Department of Education that aimed to force public universities and K-12 schools to get rid of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs. Federal Judge Landya McCafferty issued a preliminary injunction against a 'Dear Colleague' letter that told universities they could be at risk of civil rights investigations if they have DEI programs on campus, a certification requirement for K-12 schools that DEI programs were eliminated and actions against schools reported through the Education Department's 'DEI portal.' 'Today's ruling allows educators and schools to continue to be guided by what's best for students, not by the threat of illegal restrictions and punishment,' said Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association. 'The fact is that Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and [Education Secretary] Linda McMahon are using politically motivated attacks and harmful and vague directives to stifle speech and erase critical lessons to attack public education, as they work to dismantle public schools,' she added. The lawsuit was brought on by the National Education Association, its New Hampshire affiliate and the Center for Black Educator Development. '[A] preliminary injunction would merely maintain the status quo prior to the 2025 Letter's enactment — a status quo which, as recently as 2023, the Department believed was both lawful and worthy of encouragement,' McCafferty said in her ruling. 'Moreover, the court has already determined that plaintiffs are likely to be successful in arguing that the 2025 Letter is unconstitutional,' she added. Trump has long railed against DEI, but this specific fight began Feb. 14, when the Department of Education threatened civil rights investigations against universities that had DEI programs, although the language was unclear on what was considered DEI under the directive. Following the 'Dear Colleague' letter, state education officials and K-12 school leaders were told they needed to sign a form certifying there were no DEI programs at their schools. Many Democratic states outright refused to sign the document, which was due Thursday. During this time, the department also opened a 'DEI portal' where parents and community members could report suspicious activities to the federal government. The Education Department will almost certainly appeal the decision. The Hill has reached out to the department for comment. —Updated at 2:32 p.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
