Latest news with #ChristopherCooper
Reuters
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
Justice Department ends bid to cancel ABA's domestic violence grants
July 18 (Reuters) - The American Bar Association will receive $3.2 million in domestic violence training grants through 2027, after the U.S. Department of Justice declined to appeal a May ruling that blocked the agency from canceling the funding. A federal judge in Washington on Thursday administratively closed the ABA's lawsuit against the Justice Department, putting the case on hiatus for two years in response to a request from both sides. Either party could reopen the case 'if circumstances warrant,' the ABA and Justice Department said in a joint status report, opens new tab filed on Monday. Thursday's order by U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper clears the way for the ABA to receive the full amount of grants it had been awarded by the Justice Department to train lawyers to represent victims of domestic and sexual violence, which the department had canceled. An ABA spokesperson declined to comment, and the Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday. An attorney for the ABA, Skye Perryman of the nonprofit legal group Democracy Forward, said in a statement that the Justice Department had no basis to cancel the ABA's domestic violence grants. 'We are pleased to have defeated attempts to retaliate against our client for its exercise of its Constitutional rights–and to have restored this critical funding," Perryman said. The ABA sued the Justice Department in April, claiming the agency illegally terminated federal grants in retaliation for the lawyer organization's public criticism of U.S. President Donald Trump's administration. The ABA, which has about 150,000 members and advocates for the legal profession, said in its lawsuit that the Justice Department and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi violated free speech protections under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment by halting funding in retaliation for the ABA "taking positions the administration disfavors." The Justice Department terminated the grants on April 10 — one day after U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche sent a memo barring Justice Department attorneys from traveling to or speaking at ABA events, according to the complaint. Blanche said the organization had engaged in "activist causes" contrary to the department's mission, according to the ABA's lawsuit. The Justice Department asked the judge to dismiss the case, arguing that the court lacked authority to compel the federal government to pay money out under a contract. Cooper on May 14 granted the ABA's request for a preliminary injunction to stop the government from terminating the grants as the case moved forward, writing, opens new tab that the ABA's 'First Amendment injury is concrete and ongoing.' Read more: American Bar Association sues US Justice Department, claiming retaliation over grants Judge temporarily blocks canceling of ABA grants amid Trump crackdown
BBC News
15-07-2025
- General
- BBC News
Son's plea for 'common sense' after soil dumped on man's grave
Flowers and cards "tossed aside" and a pile of earth placed on top of their dad's grave are what awaited the family of Christopher Cooper when they went to Cooper, son of Christopher, made the trip to Saffron Hill Cemetery on Father's Day, 15 June, only to discover the mess caused when a new grave had been dug next to his has decided to speak out in the hope of what he believes should be improved work practices at the cemetery in family made a complaint to Leicester City Council and the authority apologised "for any distress caused". Christopher died at the age of 68 in 2023 and Freddie went to visit his grave in early June, on what would have been Christopher's did not expect to return a week later to find the grave had been covered in a pile of said he believes the soil was left there for four to five days, but cannot be 37-year-old said: "It was a really big mound of mud, placed close to the place where he's buried and when we got closer we realised it was actually on top of his grave. "Cemetery staff had moved all the flowers and cards and just tossed them to the side and piled a load of mud on my dad's grave - obviously digging the grave next to it. "They just left us with a big mess." Freddie believes there was enough space on the wider grassed area to put the freshly dug earth. He added: "It only takes a minute of extra thinking to say, put it behind us, it's Father's Day."In a statement, Leicester City Council said: "It is common practice in all cemeteries that when digging a grave for a burial there will be occasions when the soil needs to be temporarily placed on an adjacent grave."This would be for a very short time only, and the soil would be placed on boards to ensure no damage was caused. "The soil is always removed as soon as possible after the adjacent burial has taken place"."We do, however, apologise, for any distress caused in this instance and we have contacted the family to apologise. We can offer the assurance that the soil has been removed without any damage to the grave." Freddie, from Claybrooke Magna in Leicestershire, said he would accept an apology from the council or cemetery if he had been given said: "I'd like to see a bit of common sense used and a bit of respect shown for people's graves in the future."From what they say it is standard procedure but I don't think it's morally right to be decimating graves when they had plenty of space to put the mud elsewhere."
Washington Post
18-06-2025
- Health
- Washington Post
Trump administration blocked from cutting local health funding for four municipalities
A federal court has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from clawing back millions in public health funding from four Democrat-led municipalities in GOP-governed states. It's the second such federal ruling to reinstate public health funding for several states. U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper in Washington, D.C., issued a preliminary injunction Tuesday sought by district attorneys in Harris County, Texas, home to Houston, and three cities: Columbus, Ohio, Nashville, Tennessee, and Kansas City, Missouri. The decision means the federal government must reinstate funding to the four municipalities until the case is fully litigated.
The Independent
17-06-2025
- Health
- The Independent
Trump administration blocked from cutting local health funding for four municipalities
A federal court has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from clawing back millions in public health funding from four Democrat-led municipalities in GOP-governed states. It's the second such federal ruling to reinstate public health funding for several states. U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper in Washington, D.C., issued a preliminary injunction Tuesday sought by district attorneys in Harris County, Texas, home to Houston, and three cities: Columbus, Ohio, Nashville, Tennessee, and Kansas City, Missouri. The decision means the federal government must reinstate funding to the four municipalities until the case is fully litigated. Their lawsuit, filed in late April, alleged $11 billion in cuts to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention programs had already been approved by Congress and are being unconstitutionally withheld. They also argued that the administration's actions violate Department of Health and Human Services regulations. The cities and counties argued the cuts were 'a massive blow to U.S. public health at a time where state and local public health departments need to address burgeoning infectious diseases and chronic illnesses, like the measles, bird flu, and mpox.' The cuts would lead to thousands of state and local public health employees being fired, the lawsuit argued. The local governments, alongside the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union, wanted the court to reinstate the grants nationwide. But Cooper said in his preliminary injunction that the funds can only be blocked to the four municipalities and in a May 21 hearing expressed skepticism about whether it could apply more widely. The funding in question was granted during the COVID-19 pandemic but aimed at building up public health infrastructure overall, Harris County Attorney Christian Menefee said in a statement in April. The four local governments were owed about $32.7 million in future grant payments, Cooper's opinion notes. The federal government's lawyers said the grants were legally cut because, "Now that the pandemic is over, the grants and cooperative agreements are no longer necessary as their limited purpose has run out.' They used the same argument in the case brought by 23 states and the District of Columbia over the HHS funding clawback. Menefee said the cuts defunded programs in Harris County for wastewater disease surveillance, community health workers and clinics and call centers that helped people get vaccinated. Columbus City Attorney Zach Klein said the cuts forced the city to fire 11 of its 22 infectious disease staffers. Nashville used some of its grant money to support programs, including a 'strike team' that after the pandemic addressed gaps in health services that kept kids from being able to enroll in school, according to the lawsuit. Kansas City used one of its grants to build out capabilities to test locally for COVID-19, influenza and measles rather than waiting for results from the county lab. The suit details that after four years of work to certify facilities and train staff, the city 'was at the final step" of buying lab equipment when the grant was canceled. Representatives for HHS, the CDC, the cities and Harris County did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Yahoo
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court limits outside access to DOGE records
The Supreme Court has reined in a lower-court order that allowed a watchdog group wide-ranging access to records of the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency. The high court's majority said a judge's directive allowing Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington to examine DOGE's recommendations for cost savings at executive branch agencies was 'not appropriately tailored.' In a two-page order Friday, the Supreme Court said such access was not a proper way to resolve an ongoing dispute about whether DOGE is a federal agency subject to the Freedom of Information Act or operates as a presidential advisory body that does not have to share its records with the public. 'Separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal Executive Branch communications,' the court's majority wrote. All three of the court's liberal justices indicated they disagreed with the decision, but none provided an explanation of her views. The court's action amounted to a partial victory for the Trump administration, which filed an emergency appeal in an effort to avoid complying with orders from U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, who is overseeing CREW's lawsuit. However, the high court's order appears to leave the door open for CREW to seek records and take testimony about DOGE's structure and authority. The Trump administration has insisted that the DOGE team simply makes recommendations to agency officials, who have the final decision on budget and staff cuts. However, Cooper said there were strong indications that DOGE's recommendations were routinely approved wholesale, suggesting they were more like orders than suggestions.
