Latest news with #CourtofFederalClaims
02-08-2025
- Politics
Judge allows the National Science Foundation to withhold hundreds of millions of research dollars
NEW YORK -- The National Science Foundation can continue to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars from researchers in several states until litigation aimed at restoring it plays out, a federal court ruled Friday. U.S. District Judge John Cronan in New York declined to force the NSF to restart payments immediately, while the case is still being decided, as requested by the sixteen Democrat-led states who brought the suit, including New York, Hawaii, California, Colorado and Connecticut. In his ruling, Cronan said he would not grant the preliminary injunction in part because it may be that another court, the Court of Federal Claims, has jurisdiction over what is essentially a case about money. He also said the states failed to show that NSF's actions were counter to the agency's mandate. The lawsuit filed in May alleges that the National Science Foundation's new grant-funding priorities as well as a cap on what's known as indirect research expenses 'violate the law and jeopardize America's longstanding global leadership in STEM.' Another district court had already blocked the the cap on indirect costs — administrative expenses that allow research to get done like paying support staff and maintaining equipment. This injunction had been requested to restore funding to the grants that were cut. In April, the NSF announced a new set of priorities and began axing hundreds of grants for research focused on things like misinformation and diversity, equity and inclusion. Researchers who lost funding also were studying artificial intelligence, post-traumatic stress disorder in veterans, STEM education for K-12 students and more. Researchers were not given a specific explanation for why their grants were canceled, attorney Colleen Faherty, representing the state of New York, said during last month's hearing. Instead, they received boilerplate language stating that their work 'no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities." NSF has long been directed by Congress to encourage underrepresented groups like women and people with disabilities to participate in STEM. According to the lawsuit, the science foundation's funding cuts already halted efforts to train the next generation of scientists in fields like computer science, math and environmental science. A lawyer for the NSF said at the hearing that the agency has the authority to fund whatever research it deems necessary — and has since its inception in 1950. In the court filing, the government also argued that its current priorities were to 'create opportunities for all Americans everywhere' and 'not preference some groups at the expense of others, or directly/indirectly exclude individuals or groups.' The plaintiff states are trying to 'substitute their own judgement for the judgement of the agency," Adam Gitlin, an attorney for the NSF, said during the hearing. The science foundation is still funding some projects related to expanding representation in STEM, Cronan wrote in his ruling. Per the lawsuit filed in May, for example, the University of Northern Colorado lost funding for only one of its nine programs focused on increasing participation of underrepresented groups in STEM fields. The states are reviewing the decision, according to spokespeople from the New York and Hawaii attorney general offices. The National Science Foundation declined to comment. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
The Sun
22-07-2025
- Politics
- The Sun
Federal judge questions Trump admin's Harvard funding cuts
NEW YORK: A federal judge scrutinized the Trump administration's decision to cut billions in federal funding to Harvard University, prompting a sharp response from the former president. Judge Allison Burroughs questioned the administration's lawyer on how reducing research grants would address alleged campus anti-Semitism, according to US media reports. Trump swiftly criticized Burroughs on Truth Social, calling her an 'Obama appointed Judge' and a 'TOTAL DISASTER,' despite no ruling being issued yet. He vowed to appeal if the decision went against his administration. Harvard sued in April to restore over $2 billion in frozen funds, arguing the cuts were unconstitutional retaliation. The administration claims the move is justified due to Harvard's failure to protect Jewish and Israeli students during protests against Israel's war in Gaza. The funding freeze forced Harvard to implement a hiring freeze and pause critical research programs, including public health initiatives experts say are vital. The university maintains the administration is overstepping by attempting to influence academic decisions. Trump has sought to move the case to the Court of Federal Claims, but Harvard insists the federal court in Boston is the proper venue. The university argues the administration is leveraging funding cuts to control academic policies, including curriculum and staffing. The dispute has broader implications, as the administration also targeted Harvard's international student programs, proposing visa restrictions that were later blocked by a judge. Additionally, the government urged an accrediting body to revoke Harvard's certification, alleging civil rights violations. Both sides seek a summary judgment to avoid trial, but Burroughs has yet to decide. The case highlights tensions between federal oversight and university autonomy. - AFP
The Hill
21-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
What to expect in Monday's Harvard-Trump administration hearing
Harvard and the Trump administration are going head-to-head in court on Monday over the federal government's pause of billions of dollars in funding to the university. Federal Judge Allison Burroughs is presiding over the case, where both sides are seeking a summary judgement to end the battle without going to trial. Harvard argues the Trump administration is violating its First Amendment rights and seeking control over the university by yanking the nearly $3 billion. 'Harvard does not request an injunction that would prevent the Government from initiating proper investigations in full conformance with the Title VI process. It simply requests that the Government be enjoined from depriving Harvard of funding as a form of retaliation for Harvard's exercise of its First Amendment right,' reads the latest filing from the school. The Trump administration has argued it has the authority to pull the funds after determining the university has violated the civil rights of its Jewish students by failing to properly act against antisemitism on campus. The government also argues this court is not the proper venue for this dispute. 'This case is a contract dispute. Harvard seeks to enforce government contracts to receive money that it claims it is due. But under the Tucker Act, Harvard must pursue relief in the Court of Federal Claims, the only court with jurisdiction to hear its claims,' the Trump administration wrote in a June 14 filing. It is unknown if Burroughs will make a final ruling today, and any ruling is likely to be appealed by one side or the other. The president had previously indicated the two sides were working toward a deal, but there have been no indications of progress on that. 'We have been working closely with Harvard, and it is very possible that a Deal will be announced over the next week or so,' Trump wrote June 20. Any ruling here could shape broader discussions, as higher education leaders are on the edge of their seats over how an agreement could affect how the federal government deals with other universities. Burroughs already handed Harvard a win after she ruled against the administration's directive to ban the university from enrolling or keeping foreign students. After Harvard rejected a list of demands from the White House, the administration has launched multiple federal investigations, threatened its accreditation and issued a subpoena for foreign students' data. The Trump administration had demanded Harvard eliminated diversity, equity and inclusion efforts and reform its admissions and hiring practices, among other things. Harvard publicly posted the letter, rejected the demands and quickly sued after the research funding was pulled.
The Hill
08-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Federal judge blocks new Trump conditions for mass transit, homelessness grants
The Trump administration may not, for now, impose new conditions furthering the president's agenda on certain mass transit and homelessness services grants, a federal judge ruled Wednesday. Senior U.S. District Judge Barbara Rothstein, an appointee of former President Carter, temporarily blocked the administration from placing the constraints on hundreds of millions of dollars worth of grants for the local governments that challenged them, from the Seattle area to New York City. The constraints were meant to bolster core tenets of President Trump's sweeping second term agenda, the eight cities and counties that sued said, spanning efforts to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies; facilitate mass deportations; and make information about lawful abortions less accessible. The challengers wrote in court filings that some plaintiffs were directed to decide whether to agree to the conditions or forfeit federal funding as soon as Thursday, which would have slashed 'critical' programs and services, forced workforce reductions and significantly impacted their budgets. 'Defendants have put Plaintiffs in the position of having to choose between accepting conditions that they believe are unconstitutional, and risking the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grant funding, including funding that they have already budgeted and are committed to spending,' Rothstein wrote in a terse five-page order. The Trump administration argued that lawsuit amounts to a contract dispute and should have been brought in the Court of Federal Claims, not before Rothstein. However, the judge rejected those arguments, finding that the challengers asserted claims based on statutory and constitutional rights, not a contract claim, and the injunctive relief they seek would not be available to them in the other venue. The order bars the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Transportation and the Federal Transit Administration from enforcing the new conditions or withholding funding for 14 days. The local jurisdictions will likely seek longer-term relief, now that the pause is in place. Boston and New York City, the city and county of San Francisco and Santa Clara County in California and Pierce and Snohomish Counties in Washington state sued over changes to homelessness services grants. Washington state's King County, which includes Seattle, sued over the homelessness grant condition changes and mass transit funding.
Boston Globe
07-04-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
US bishops halt partnerships with federal government on aid programs, citing funding cuts
The decision means the bishops won't be renewing existing agreements with the federal government, the bishops said. The announcement did not say how long current agreements were scheduled to last. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Catholic bishops sued President Trump's administration in February over its abrupt halt to the funding of aid provided to newly arrived refugees, saying they are owed millions already allocated by Congress to carry out resettlement aid under an agreement with the federal government. Advertisement But a federal judge ruled that he couldn't order the government to pay money due on a contract, saying a contractual dispute belongs before the Court of Federal Claims. The bishops have appealed that ruling. Beyond that specific funding dispute is the Trump administration's halt to all new refugee arrivals. The Catholic bishops oversaw one of 10 national agencies, most of them faith-based, which contracted with the federal government to resettle refugees who come to the United States legally after being vetted and approved by the federal government. Advertisement Broglio's announcement didn't specify what the children's services program was. The bishops have overseen Catholic agencies resettling displaced people for a century. In recent decades, they have done so in a partnership with the US government, receiving grants that covered much, though not all, of the expenses. The Trump administration's 'decision to reduce these programs drastically forces us to reconsider the best way to serve the needs of our brothers and sisters seeking safe harbor from violence and persecution,' said Broglio, who heads the Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA. The announcement did not specify whether the cuts would lead to any layoffs, though Broglio asked for prayers for the 'many staff and refugees impacted.' Vice President JD Vance, a Catholic convert, accused the bishops conference in January of resettling immigrants who are in the country illegally in order to get millions in federal funding — an apparent reference to the resettlement program, which actually involves legally approved refugees. The bishops noted that rather than making money on the program, they receive less federal aid than the programs cost and need to supplement the funding with charitable dollars. Vance followed up his criticisms by appealing to Catholic teaching to justify immigration restrictions. That drew rejoinders not only from US bishops but an implicit rebuke from Pope Francis, who said Christian charity requires helping those in need, not just those in one's closest circles.
