Latest news with #AdministrativeProcedureAct
Boston Globe
4 days ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
In court testimony, Boston ICE official recalls pressure from above to arrest Rümeysa Öztürk
'We made it a priority,' Cunningham said. He also testified that, in the months after President Trump was inaugurated in January, Homeland Security Investigations has been prioritizing immigration arrests more than before, and that 'the prioritization of that work has certainly increased.' The testimony took place during the seventh day of trial in a lawsuit brought by higher education organizations, including the American Association of University Professors, over the Trump administration's policies of arresting and detaining noncitizen students and others engaged in pro-Palestinian activism. Advertisement Öztürk was US District Judge William G. Young will decide whether the lawsuit plaintiffs proved their claims that the administration's effort to revoke the visas of pro-Palestinian protesters and deport them is a violation of their First Amendment rights and the Administrative Procedure Act. Advertisement In court on Tuesday, multiple top ICE officials from the Boston, New England, New York and Washington D.C. offices of Homeland Security Investigations said that in the past six months under Trump, they were told to prioritize immigration enforcement cases, as opposed to criminal cases, which they had previously focused on in the past. Cunningham acknowledged that prior to this change, he largely had no experience with these kinds of cases. Cunningham consulted with an attorney from ICE's Office of the Principal Legal Advisor prior to Öztürk's arrest, to make sure that the agency was on 'solid legal ground' in the operation, he said. Last week, Peter Hatch, an assistant director of an ICE intelligence office, testified that analysts were directed to look at a pro-Israel website for leads on investigating protesters because it contained more than 5,000 names of people who publicly supported the Palestinian cause. The team looking into the protesters was internally referred to as Tiger Team, Hatch said. Hatch disclosed that the agency An attorney for the plaintiffs displayed in court a report on Öztürk, titled 'Report of Analysis,' which was ICE's subject profile of Öztürk. It was the first time the report, which was only partially unveiled, had been disclosed. Advertisement On Tuesday, Cunningham, who said he supervised Öztürk's arrest, told the court that he received an email which included a memo from the Department of State as an attachment, which said that Öztürk's visa had been revoked. The email also included a copy of an op-ed Öztürk co-wrote in the student newspaper calling on Tufts to divest from companies with ties to Israel. He could not remember receiving a similar communication in his time at HSI, he testified. He said that 'there were a lot of hands in fishbowl' in planning for and carrying out the arrest. In response to questions, Cunningham said he did not see anything in the op-ed that indicated evidence of a crime. Michael Tremonte, an attorney for the plaintiffs, asked Cunningham if there had been a decision made by top officials to keep Öztürk's visa's revocation a secret from her. 'We did not plan on alerting her to the fact that her visa had been revoked,' Cunningham responded. On Friday, John Armstrong, a top official in the Bureau of Consular Affairs, which is part of the state department, also testified that Öztürk was not informed that her visa was being revoked, on guidance from ICE officials. 'ICE had made a request that we not inform so that they could take action to remove Ms. Öztürk from the United States,' Armstrong said. Armstrong said that the state department typically lets visa holders know that their visa is being revoked. Cunningham testified that he was the agent who signed the arrest warrant for ICE to ultimately apprehend Öztürk, and that the cause for her arrest was her visa revocation. which would make her in violation of immigration law. Advertisement During Cuningham's testimony, Young, the judge, noted that 'not everyone who has their visa revoked is arrested.' 'I don't think it's at issue whether there was legal authority to take Ms. Öztürk into custody,' Young said. 'The question is a broader question as to the reasons for all that.' Young said that he was in possession of various documents related to Öztürk's arrest, but that he could not share them with the plaintiffs — along with some documents related to other arrests of students by ICE — because a federal appeals court has ordered they remain sealed, while weighing a petition by the government to declare them privileged information. On Tuesday, several other ICE agents who were involved in the arrests of students who had expressed Pro-Palestinian views testified, including agents who planned the apprehension of Mahmoud Khalil in New York, Mohsen Mahdawi in Vermont, and Badar Khan Suri, a postdoctoral scholar and professor at Georgetown University. The agents testified that supervisors had conveyed to them that the Department of State notified their offices that these scholars were in violation of immigration law, and that resources should be swiftly allocated to locate and eventually arrest them. Shelley Murphy of the Globe staff and Globe correspondent Angela Mathew contributed to this report. Giulia McDonnell Nieto del Rio can be reached at
Yomiuri Shimbun
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yomiuri Shimbun
States Sue to Force Feds to Release $7 Billion in Education Funding
A group of 24 states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration Monday over its withholding of nearly $7 billion in education funding for after-school care, English-language learning, teacher training and other programs, asking a federal judge to force the federal government to release the money. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Rhode Island, accuses the Trump administration of violating the Constitution and exceeding executive authority by overruling Congress' spending power. It also argues that the freeze violates federal laws governing funding processes, the Impoundment Control Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. School districts and their partners expected the funding, which supports six long-running grant programs, to be distributed July 1. Instead, the Education Department notified states that the money was under review for compliance with President Donald Trump's priorities. At the time, the Office of Management and Budget said it was investigating whether any of the grant money had been used in the past to fund a 'radical leftwing agenda.' It did not indicate when the review might be completed and said no decisions had been made. The plaintiff states' 23 attorneys general and two governors, all Democrats, sued Education Secretary Linda McMahon, OMB Director Russell Vought and Trump. The Education Department and the OMB did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday. The lawsuit argues that, under the Constitution, the executive branch cannot refuse to spend funds appropriated by Congress. It claims that the funding freeze has 'caused chaos' for K-12 school districts and could affect hundreds of thousands of adult learners in high school diploma and English language programs. 'Congress allocated these funds and the law requires they be delivered,' New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) said in a statement. 'We will not allow this administration to rewrite the rules to punish the communities it doesn't like.' The withholding of the money sets up another court fight between the Trump administration and its critics. Since Trump took office in January, his administration has faced accusations of constitutional violations, unlawful actions and executive overreach in more than 300 lawsuits. The Post reported last month that the administration has been preparing to refuse to spend congressionally mandated funds to test the Impoundment Control Act, which is meant to prevent the executive branch from overturning spending decisions made by Congress. The plaintiffs sought relief for their states only, which Democratic attorneys general have typically done in the funding-related lawsuits they have filed against the Trump administration, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser said at a news conference Monday afternoon. The Supreme Court's June ruling that federal judges cannot grant nationwide injunctions but can grant relief only to those party to the lawsuit did not affect the plaintiffs' plans in this case, Weiser said. The affected grant programs fund teachers' professional development; English-language learning programs; adult literacy programs; before- and after-school care; education support for the children of migrant agricultural workers; and student enrichment including mental health services, college and career counseling, and STEM education. Most of the grant programs have been in place for decades. The funding freeze had immediate effects on some school districts and after-school care providers, whose budgets and hiring had factored in the money, educators said. In the lawsuit, the attorneys general said school districts are canceling or shrinking programs and face cutting staff. The states allege that Trump violated the Impoundment Control Act, which prohibits the executive branch from unilaterally refusing to spend appropriated funds without following certain procedures. The administration did not follow the legal procedures that lay out when and how the departments can refuse to release funds approved by Congress, the states allege. The lawsuit also contends that the administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to offer 'a reasoned explanation' for the funding review. The freeze also violates the Constitution's spending clause and the principle of separation of powers, the lawsuit claims. 'Trump and McMahon have no right to hold these funds back. And in doing so they are jeopardizing critical programs our students, schools and families rely on,' California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) said at the Monday news conference. The lawsuit laid out various consequences the states could suffer if the administration does not release the funds, including staff layoffs. The states collectively receive about $3.6 billion of the withheld funds, Bonta said. In Delaware, the plaintiffs said, children whose families move frequently for agriculture work will probably lose services including summer school, preschool literacy, STEAM camp and tutoring. In Michigan, English-learning programs with more than 270 staff members and nearly 100,000 students will be at risk of ending. In California, nearly 700 enrichment or summer programs that rely on some of the funds could be at risk of staff layoffs or closure. In New York, some summer programs for children have already shut down, leaving families without child care, according to the attorney general's office. An estimated 65,000 students in New York could lose access to after-school or summer programs, and 80,000 could lose adult education and literacy services, according to the lawsuit. The state education department employs 67 people whose salaries are covered by the frozen funds. The state will have to carry out layoffs if the money is not released, James's office said. Separately, a group of 32 senators called on Vought and McMahon to release the funding in a letter sent Monday, saying the money was being withheld illegally. 'It is unacceptable that the administration is picking and choosing what parts of the appropriations law to follow, and you must immediately implement the entire law as Congress intended and as the oaths you swore require you to do,' wrote the senators, led by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Washington).
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump's shortcut rulemaking is shortchanging all of us
Regardless of political party, presidential administrations have traditionally abided by the bedrock American principles of transparency and accountability when it comes to federal agency rulemaking. The Trump administration is defying these principles. President Trump is rolling back longstanding protections using unlawful shortcuts that shortchange the public's right to provide input and understand how that feedback has shaped federal agency decisions. Enacted soon after the end of World War II, the Administrative Procedure Act outlines steps that federal agencies must take when they issue or amend regulations, also known as rules. Critically, this process includes soliciting and then responding to significant comments from the public, especially when those rules affect people's rights and responsibilities under federal law. The Trump administration has jettisoned this established approach to rescind bedrock legal protections for everyday Americans in the dark of night, with almost no explanation. President Trump signaled his plan to skirt established processes for rulemaking in a presidential memorandum issued on April 9, 'Directing the Repeal of Unlawful Regulations.' The memorandum accurately recognizes that a federal agency may use an expedited approach under the Administrative Procedure Act if it has 'good cause' to find that the usual process would be 'impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest.' Indeed, the Administrative Conference of the United States has recognized that expedited processes, such as direct final rules, are appropriate in some instances, such as when the proposed rule changes are noncontroversial. It further underscores the importance of public engagement whenever there is truly 'good cause' to use an expedited approach. However, the Trump administration is abusing this process by using expedited processes for changes that are clearly controversial. For example, in May, the U.S. Department of Energy issued four direct final rules related to nondiscrimination protections in federally assisted programs or activities pertaining to general programs, new construction requirements, nondiscrimination on the basis of sex in education and regarding nondiscrimination on the basis of sex in sports. This means that entities that receive federal funds from the Department of Energy will not have to provide interpretation and translation services when needed. They will not need to eliminate architectural barriers that make buildings inaccessible, nor will they be prohibited from engaging in activities that perpetuate the effects of discrimination. These direct final rules are part of a broader rollback of longstanding civil rights protections under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other laws, which Trump previewed in his misguided and deceptively titled executive order on Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy. The Department of Energy's direct final rules on nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs or activities fail the laugh test under the Administrative Procedure Act. As a comment recently filed with the Department of Energy by more than 40 law professors explains, 'The use of direct final rules in these contexts contravenes the clear language of the Administrative Procedure Act, ignores long-established procedures on notice and comment rulemaking, and undermines the role of public participation in government rulemaking.' Reinforcing this point, another comment filed by nearly 30 civil rights, environmental justice and environmental organizations, together with supporting individuals, underscores how the administration's approach 'violates the procedural mandates of the Administrative Procedure Act and subverts nondiscrimination principles that benefit all Americans.' In the end, the number of comments the Department of Energy received on its nondiscrimination direct final rules speaks volumes: 19,421 comments regarding nondiscrimination (general provisions), 20,711 comments regarding new construction requirements related to nondiscrimination, 9,293 comments regarding nondiscrimination on the basis of sex in education and 21,264 comments regarding nondiscrimination on the basis of sex in sports. So what's the harm in allowing the Department of Energy and other federal agencies in the Trump administration to bypass established procedures? The harm is to all of us — the American public. According to the Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act from 1947, the law seeks to ensure that federal agencies keep the public informed and engage them in rulemaking through uniform processes that are subject to judicial review. These goals remain as true today as they did nearly 80 years ago. As the United States commemorates the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution, we must remember our founding principles — that a government by the people and of the people must also be accountable to the people. We cannot let the Trump administration shortchange these goals. Sharmila Murthy is a professor of Law and Public Policy at Northeastern University who previously worked at the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
7 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump's shortcut rulemaking is shortchanging all of us
Regardless of political party, presidential administrations have traditionally abided by the bedrock American principles of transparency and accountability when it comes to federal agency rulemaking. The Trump administration is defying these principles. President Trump is rolling back longstanding protections using unlawful shortcuts that shortchange the public's right to provide input and understand how that feedback has shaped federal agency decisions. Enacted soon after the end of World War II, the Administrative Procedure Act outlines steps that federal agencies must take when they issue or amend regulations, also known as rules. Critically, this process includes soliciting and then responding to significant comments from the public, especially when those rules affect people's rights and responsibilities under federal law. The Trump administration has jettisoned this established approach to rescind bedrock legal protections for everyday Americans in the dark of night, with almost no explanation. President Trump signaled his plan to skirt established processes for rulemaking in a presidential memorandum issued on April 9, 'Directing the Repeal of Unlawful Regulations.' The memorandum accurately recognizes that a federal agency may use an expedited approach under the Administrative Procedure Act if it has 'good cause' to find that the usual process would be 'impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest.' Indeed, the Administrative Conference of the United States has recognized that expedited processes, such as direct final rules, are appropriate in some instances, such as when the proposed rule changes are noncontroversial. It further underscores the importance of public engagement whenever there is truly 'good cause' to use an expedited approach. However, the Trump administration is abusing this process by using expedited processes for changes that are clearly controversial. For example, in May, the U.S. Department of Energy issued four direct final rules related to nondiscrimination protections in federally assisted programs or activities pertaining to general programs, new construction requirements, nondiscrimination on the basis of sex in education and regarding nondiscrimination on the basis of sex in sports. This means that entities that receive federal funds from the Department of Energy will not have to provide interpretation and translation services when needed. They will not need to eliminate architectural barriers that make buildings inaccessible, nor will they be prohibited from engaging in activities that perpetuate the effects of discrimination. These direct final rules are part of a broader rollback of longstanding civil rights protections under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other laws, which Trump previewed in his misguided and deceptively titled executive order on Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy. The Department of Energy's direct final rules on nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs or activities fail the laugh test under the Administrative Procedure Act. As a comment recently filed with the Department of Energy by more than 40 law professors explains, 'The use of direct final rules in these contexts contravenes the clear language of the Administrative Procedure Act, ignores long-established procedures on notice and comment rulemaking, and undermines the role of public participation in government rulemaking.' Reinforcing this point, another comment filed by nearly 30 civil rights, environmental justice and environmental organizations, together with supporting individuals, underscores how the administration's approach 'violates the procedural mandates of the Administrative Procedure Act and subverts nondiscrimination principles that benefit all Americans.' In the end, the number of comments the Department of Energy received on its nondiscrimination direct final rules speaks volumes: 19,421 comments regarding nondiscrimination (general provisions), 20,711 comments regarding new construction requirements related to nondiscrimination, 9,293 comments regarding nondiscrimination on the basis of sex in education and 21,264 comments regarding nondiscrimination on the basis of sex in sports. So what's the harm in allowing the Department of Energy and other federal agencies in the Trump administration to bypass established procedures? The harm is to all of us — the American public. According to the Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act from 1947, the law seeks to ensure that federal agencies keep the public informed and engage them in rulemaking through uniform processes that are subject to judicial review. These goals remain as true today as they did nearly 80 years ago. As the United States commemorates the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution, we must remember our founding principles — that a government by the people and of the people must also be accountable to the people. We cannot let the Trump administration shortchange these goals. Sharmila Murthy is a professor of Law and Public Policy at Northeastern University who previously worked at the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
Yahoo
12-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Los Angeles joining federal lawsuit against immigration raids
Los Angeles leaders said Tuesday the city would join a lawsuit against the Trump administration over immigration raids in the local area. The city will join the American Civil Liberties Union in suing the federal government, alleging officials are using 'unlawful tactics to achieve its intended arrest numbers.' 'The federal government has concentrated thousands of armed immigration agents, many of whom lack visible identification, and military troops in our communities, conducting unconstitutional raids, roundups and anonymous detentions, sowing fear and chaos among our residents,' Hydee Feldstein Soto, city attorney of Los Angeles, said in a Tuesday release. 'Today's motion to intervene shows we will not stand by and allow these raids to continue or to become the standard operating procedure in our communities.' Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) denied the allegations. 'DHS enforcement operations are highly targeted, and officers do their due diligence,' McLaughlin told The Hill, denying that arrests are not made based off of the color of someone's skin. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) have both railed against the president's decision to send National Guard soldiers to Los Angeles last month in an effort to quell protests against immigration policies. 'I have said that I think this is an experiment. I think LA is a petri dish, and they are essentially pressing the envelope to see how far the American public will tolerate the federal seizure of power from a governor and in this random thing is just a way of creating a sense of … terror and fate and fear in our community,' Bass said during a Tuesday press conference. 'It is having profound economic impact. It is obviously impacting and traumatizing families, and it is to serve a political agenda, none of which has anything positive to do with our city,' she added. Groups gathered for multiple days to share outrage over recent immigration raids that resulted in the arrests of dozens, but Bass said they were inaccurately characterized. ''Riots' that were reported never happened. We did have a couple of incidences of vandalism and looting, but the way it was portrayed nationally was like the whole city was up in flames,' Bass told reporters. She criticized comparisons to the 1992 LA riots following the acquittal of police officers in the beating of Rodney King, saying they were 'completely and 100 percent inappropriate.' Mayors from the surrounding area joined Bass on Tuesday to call out the Trump administration for an alleged violation of residents' constitutional rights. 'The lawsuit seeks to hold federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, accountable for policies and practices that violate the Fourth and Tenth amendments of the United States Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act,' Montbello Mayor Salvador Menendez said at the press conference. 'And let me be clear, we cannot allow families to be torn apart without due process, and we cannot stand silent while the constitutional rights of our residents are trampled,' he added. Updated at 5:30 p.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
