Latest news with #AmicusCuriae
Forbes
a day ago
- Politics
- Forbes
18 Research Universities Back Harvard's Lawsuit Against Funding Cuts
Harvard University receives new backing from 18 other institutions in its lawsuit against the Trump ... More administration's freezing of federal funds. A group of the nation's leading research universities have requested that a federal judge allow them to file a legal brief supporting Harvard University's lawsuit against the Trump administration over more than $2 billion in frozen federal grant money. The 18 institutions requesting permission to file an amicus curiae (or 'friend of the court') brief are: Boston University; Brown University; California Institute of Technology; Colorado State University; Dartmouth College; Johns Hopkins University; Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Michigan State University; Oregon State University; Princeton University; Rice University; Rutgers University; Tufts University; University of Maryland, College Park; University of Oregon; University of Pennsylvania; University of Pittsburgh; and Yale University. The request was granted on Friday by Judge Allison D. Burroughs, who is presiding over the federal lawsuit. The schools have not yet filed the brief, but in their request they state that each of them 'has received millions of dollars in federal investments in scientific research over the decades.' The universities claim that 'the federal funding terminations challenged in this lawsuit inflict grievous harm that extends well beyond Harvard University,' arguing that academic research is an interconnected enterprise. The elimination of funding at Harvard negatively impacts the entire ecosystem. The cuts will disrupt ongoing research, ruin experiments and datasets, destroy the careers of aspiring scientists, and deter long-term investments at universities across the country." Harvard filed its lawsuit against the Trump administration on April 21, contending that the government's suspension of its research funding was 'unlawful.' The freeze on approximately $2.2 billion in federal funds came after Harvard University had forcefully rejected an April letter in which the administration listed a set of sweeping demands that Trump officials said Harvard had to meet if it wanted to maintain financial funding from the federal government. The administration has criticized Harvard's response to student protests over the war in Gaza, accusing it of failing to adequately confront campus antisemitism and harassment, and it accused the university of using discriminatory admission practices. But Harvard drew a line in the sand when Harvard President Alan Garber wrote a letter to the campus community stating that the institution had "informed the administration through our legal counsel that we will not accept their proposed agreement. The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.' Instead, Harvard filed its lawsuit. That letter set up what many higher education leaders had been calling for — a high-profile, principled stand against what they believe is the illegitimate attempt by the federal government to control how private universities conduct their business. While Harvard has been the leader of this resistance, the request by both public and private universities to file the amicus brief shows a new willingness of more institutions to join the fray. Noteworthy is that all but two of Harvard's Ivy League peers — Cornell University and Columbia University — were included in the group of petitioners. The action is significant because it broadens the issues in dispute beyond just an increasingly acrimonious fight between Trump officials and the nation's oldest and wealthiest university. Indeed, as the universities contend, the federal government's actions against Harvard undermines the 'longstanding mutually beneficial partnership between the government and academia that has powered American innovation and ensured American leadership for over eighty years.'
Hindustan Times
15-05-2025
- Health
- Hindustan Times
Himachal HC pulls up state govt over drug menace
In wake of the increasing drug menace Himachal Pradesh high court has pulled up state government for dragging its feet on notifying 'State Policy on Rehabilitation of Drug Addicts'. 'The state shall also inform this court whether the draft of 'State Policy on Rehabilitation of Drug Addicts', which was under consideration at the government level as per the affidavit of the chief secretary on April 20, 2019, has been notified or not?,' said the division bench comprising of chief justice GS Sandhawalia and justice Ranjan Sharma in its May 13 order during resumed hearing of petition on drug menace in state. The high court, as part of a slew of directives, has asked the state government to consider penalising the panchayats that fail to report cannabis cultivation and reward the panchayats that play a proactive role in curbing such cases. Referring to the suggestions of Amicus Curiae, high court has called for active participation of officials of revenue forest and panchayats to check illegal cannabis cultivation. '...involvement of field staff of the revenue and forest departments and panchayat of the concerned villages, has been suggested by casting a primary duty upon them to report any illicit cultivation and on failure on their part, the benefits and schemes made available to the panchayats may be stopped. The officials/staff that takes prompt and effective action to prevent illicit cultivation should be suitably rewarded and similarly incentives should be given to the Panchayats also,' said the order issued on May 13. High court has also directed the state government to submit an affidavit of district-wise NDPS cases registered for the last five years to demonstrate whether the drug menace is decreasing or increasing. High court has also sought a composite affidavit from the state regarding facilities of de-addiction and treatment centres at the district level, along with details of number of rooms which are available and the doctors, as well as supporting staff for the said purpose.
Time of India
30-04-2025
- Business
- Time of India
HC directs Centre, Raj to decide on Baran pumped storage project
1 2 Jaipur: Rajasthan High Court has directed the Union govt to decide within two months on pending approvals for a proposal to fell 1.19 lakh trees in Baran for setting up a pumped storage project. The court order, passed on April 28, also said no trees shall be cut until further orders, and without its permission. The division bench of Chief Justice M M Shrivastava and Justice Sunil Beniwal called this a matter of public importance concerning the felling of over one lakh trees if the project is green signalled. At present permissions are pending at both Centre and state levels. "At this stage, we think it proper that the Central govt should take a final decision in the matter and any decision taken in the matter to grant or not to grant approval should be placed before this court for perusal, with a copy of the same to learned Amicus Curiae. Further proceedings in this case would depend upon the decision that may be taken by the Central govt in the matter," the court said. The court also said, "Taking into consideration the nature and magnitude of the exercise required to be undertaken by the Central govt in coordination with the state govt, we are inclined to list the matter after two months. However, we make it clear that no tree shall be cut without the permission of the court." The case involves an application for forest clearance which is under consideration by both Union and state govt. Earlier, the HC had taken suo motu cognisance of a media report about the feeling of 1.19 lakh trees on forest land in Baran, part of which also falls within the govt's proposed Cheetah corridor. Senior counsel for the executing company said the project was unable to proceed despite having procured land and investment of approximately Rs 500 crore. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like New Container Houses Brazil (Take A Look At The Prices) Container House Search Now Undo While the counsel for the Union of India told court that in-principle approval was granted to the project, some queries raised by the state govt remain unresolved. Once these are addressed, the Centre will be in a position to take a final decision. Amicus Curiae expressed concern that approval may lead to immediate tree felling, to which the state promised to respond promptly.
