Latest news with #DemocracyForwardFoundation
Boston Globe
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Mass. organization among groups suing Justice Department to reverse hundreds of grant cancellations
The lawsuit filed by the Democracy Forward Foundation and the Perry Law firm asks for class action status and also names the Office of Justice Programs and Maureen Henneberg, the acting head of that office, as defendants. Advertisement The lawsuit argues that the grant terminations did not allow due process to the organizations, lacked sufficient clarity, and that Henneberg's office lacked 'constitutional, statutory, and regulatory authority' to terminate the grants. The lawyers also argue that the move violated the constitutional separation of powers clause that gives Congress appropriation powers. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The lawsuit notes that all the grant recipients that had money rescinded received the same form letter announcing the cancellation, with identical words saying the grant programs no longer met the agency's priorities. Lawyers argue in the lawsuit that the new agency priorities noted in the form letter are not articulated in policy or law, and that federal regulations do not allow for cancellations when the agency's priorities change 'post-award.' They said the rule only allows for cancellations of grants that no longer meet the agency's goals as stated when the grants were awarded. Advertisement The lawsuit says the Office of Justice Programs 'is permitted to terminate an award based on agency priorities only if that basis for termination was specifically permitted by the terms and conditions of the award.' That did not happen, it argues. A spokesperson for the Justice Department did not return a message seeking comment on the lawsuit Thursday. Representatives from Vera said the nonprofit received notice on April 4 that five awards worth more than $7 million were being cancelled. The other named plaintiffs, along with hundreds of other groups, received identical notices on April 22 that they should cease any activities under the grants and that they would lose access to the federal funding system. The grants cover a wide swath of programing across the Justice Department. Among other goals, they are for community violence intervention work, combatting hate crimes, providing assistance to crime survivors and survivors of domestic or sexual abuse, improving juvenile justice, and training for law enforcement agencies. The lawsuit says none of the organizations had previously had grants terminated and many had received grants for various programs under both Democratic and Republican presidential administrations. Many of the organizations that lost the federal money said the unexpected cancellations mid-grant had meant layoffs, program closures and loss of community partnerships. In addition to staying the cancellations and reinstating the awards, lawyers also ask a judge to require state reports every 30 days to ensure compliance. 'The sudden and unlawful termination of these public safety grants makes neighborhoods everywhere less safe and does irreparable harm to communities across the country,' said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward. Advertisement
Yahoo
09-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Democratic EEOC commissioner fired by Trump sues administration
A Democratic appointee to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) who was fired by President Trump sued his administration Wednesday, claiming her termination was unlawful. Trump fired Jocelyn Samuels and another Democratic commissioner days after taking office as the administration looks to crack down on diversity, equity and inclusion policies. 'Defendant Trump's efforts to hamstring the EEOC are consistent with and further his Administration's efforts to turn back the clock on decades of established precedent protecting workers and job applicants from discrimination, but they are contrary to law,' Samuels's lawsuit reads. Created under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the five-member commission is in charge of protecting workers and job applicants from discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin. The law staggers the commissioners' five-year terms so the president may appoint a new member annually. No more than three of the five commissioners may be from the same party. Trump originally nominated Samuels to one of the Democratic slots in 2020. She was renominated by then-President Biden the following year for a term that was set to last through 2026. But a week after he took office for his second term, Trump moved to fire Samuels and Charlotte Burrows, another EEOC Democratic commissioner. The new lawsuit, which Burrows is not a part of, claims Trump did not have authority to remove Samuels from her post without cause. Trump's terminations have left the commission with just two members, one Democrat and one Republican, falling short of the three-member quorum required for the EEOC to take certain actions. 'While the President may accept these results, his actions to incapacitate the EEOC are contrary to the rule of law and harmful to the American workforce,' the lawsuit reads. Samuels is represented by the Democracy Forward Foundation, a left-leaning legal organization that has brought various challenges against Trump's policies, Katz Banks Kumin and Justice Legal Strategies. They filed the lawsuit in federal court in Washington, D.C. The EEOC is one of many federal agencies Trump has looked to remake despite their historical degree of independence from the White House. The administration's expansionist view of presidential power has sparked a wave of litigation, including lawsuits filed by fired Democratic appointees at independent agencies including the National Labor Relations Board and Federal Trade Commission. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
09-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Democratic EEOC commissioner fired by Trump sues administration
A Democratic appointee to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) who was fired by President Trump sued his administration Wednesday, claiming her termination was unlawful. Trump fired Jocelyn Samuels and another Democratic commissioner days after taking office as the administration looks to crack down on diversity, equity and inclusion policies. 'Defendant Trump's efforts to hamstring the EEOC are consistent with and further his Administration's efforts to turn back the clock on decades of established precedent protecting workers and job applicants from discrimination, but they are contrary to law,' Samuels's lawsuit reads. Created under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the five-member commission is in charge of protecting workers and job applicants from discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin. The law staggers the commissioners' five-year terms so that the president may appoint a new member annually. No more than three of the five commissioners may be from the same party. Trump originally nominated Samuels to one of the Democratic slots in 2020. She was renominated by then-President Biden the following year for a term that was set to last through 2026. But a week after he took office for his second term, Trump moved to fire Samuels and Charlotte Burrows, another EEOC Democratic commissioner. The new lawsuit, which Burrows is not a part of, claims Trump did not have authority to remove Samuels from her post without cause. Trump's terminations have left the commission with just two members, one Democrat and one Republican, falling short of the three-member quorum required for the EEOC to take certain actions. 'While the President may accept these results, his actions to incapacitate the EEOC are contrary to the rule of law and harmful to the American workforce,' the lawsuit reads. Samuels is represented by the Democracy Forward Foundation, a left-leaning legal organization that has brought various challenges against Trump's policies, Katz Banks Kumin and Justice Legal Strategies. They filed the lawsuit in federal court in Washington, D.C. The EEOC is one of many federal agencies Trump has looked to remake despite their historical degree of independence from the White House. The administration's expansionist view of presidential power has sparked a wave of litigation, including lawsuits filed by fired Democratic appointees at independent agencies including the National Labor Relations Board and Federal Trade Commission.
Yahoo
15-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Appeals court reinstates portions of Trump's DEI orders
A federal appeals court Friday reinstated portions of President Trump's executive orders targeting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs that were blocked by a lower court. The unanimous three-judge panel on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the administration is likely to succeed in its February appeal, though the two judges appointed by Democratic presidents made clear a challenge could still succeed in the future. 'But my vote to grant the stay comes with a caveat,' wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Pamela Harris, an appointee of former President Obama. 'What the Orders say on their face and how they are enforced are two different things. Agency enforcement actions that go beyond the Orders' narrow scope may well raise serious First Amendment and Due Process concerns.' U.S. Circuit Judge Albert Diaz, another Obama appointee, said he agreed and raised concerns about the recent attacks on DEI, saying such programs seem 'to be (at least to some) a monster in America's closet.' 'And despite the vitriol now being heaped on DEI, people of good faith who work to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion deserve praise, not opprobrium,' Diaz wrote in a separate opinion. But the third judge on the panel, U.S. Circuit Judge Allison Jones Rushing, a Trump appointee, chastised her colleague for praising DEI, saying it 'should play absolutely no part in deciding this case.' 'We must not lose sight of the boundaries of our constitutional role and the imperative of judicial impartiality,' Rushing wrote. 'Any individual judge's view on whether certain Executive action is good policy is not only irrelevant to fulfilling our duty to adjudicate cases and controversies according to the law, it is an impermissible consideration.' The lawsuit was filed by Baltimore's mayor and city council alongside three national associations in early February, shortly after Trump signed a series of anti-DEI orders during his first days in office. Friday marks the first time an appeals court has weighed in on the orders, though several other lawsuits remain in earlier stages. A spokesperson for the Democracy Forward Foundation, a left-leaning legal organization that represents the plaintiffs and has filed many lawsuits against the new administration, said the group was reviewing the decision. The Justice Department appealed after U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson, an appointee of former President Biden, blocked certain provisions of the executive orders, including ones that ensured federal grants do not go toward efforts viewed as DEI-related. Abelson found the challenged provisions were likely to violate both free speech protections under the First Amendment and due process protections under the Fifth Amendment. The new ruling lasts until the 4th Circuit can fully resolve the Trump administration's appeal in full. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
15-03-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Appeals court reinstates portions of Trump's DEI orders
A federal appeals court Friday reinstated portions of President Trump's executive orders targeting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs that were blocked by a lower court. The unanimous three-judge panel on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the administration is likely to succeed in its February appeal, though the two judges appointed by Democratic presidents made clear a challenge could still succeed in the future. 'But my vote to grant the stay comes with a caveat,' wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Pamela Harris, an appointee of former President Obama. 'What the Orders say on their face and how they are enforced are two different things. Agency enforcement actions that go beyond the Orders' narrow scope may well raise serious First Amendment and Due Process concerns.' U.S. Circuit Judge Albert Diaz, another Obama appointee, said he agreed and raised concerns about the recent attacks on DEI, saying such programs seem 'to be (at least to some) a monster in America's closet.' 'And despite the vitriol now being heaped on DEI, people of good faith who work to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion deserve praise, not opprobrium,' Diaz wrote in a separate opinion. But the third judge on the panel, U.S. Circuit Judge Allison Jones Rushing, a Trump appointee, chastised her colleague for praising DEI, saying it 'should play absolutely no part in deciding this case.' 'We must not lose sight of the boundaries of our constitutional role and the imperative of judicial impartiality,' Rushing wrote. 'Any individual judge's view on whether certain Executive action is good policy is not only irrelevant to fulfilling our duty to adjudicate cases and controversies according to the law, it is an impermissible consideration.' The lawsuit was filed by Baltimore's mayor and city council alongside three national associations in early February, shortly after Trump signed a series of anti-DEI orders during his first days in office. Friday marks the first time an appeals court has weighed in on the orders, though several other lawsuits remain in earlier stages. A spokesperson for the Democracy Forward Foundation, a left-leaning legal organization that represents the plaintiffs and has filed many lawsuits against the new administration, said the group was reviewing the decision. The Justice Department appealed after U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson, an appointee of former President Biden, blocked certain provisions of the executive orders, including ones that ensured federal grants do not go toward efforts viewed as DEI-related. Abelson found the challenged provisions were likely to violate both free speech protections under the First Amendment and due process protections under the Fifth Amendment. The new ruling lasts until the 4 th Circuit can fully resolve the Trump administration's appeal in full.
