Latest news with #HarvardLawReview
Gulf Today
2 days ago
- Politics
- Gulf Today
Fundamental rights shouldn't depend on your ZIP code
Ronald Brownstein, Tribune News Service One of the most powerful trends in modern politics is the growing separation between red and blue states. Now, the Supreme Court looks poised to widen that chasm. Over roughly the past decade, virtually all Republican-controlled states have rolled back rights and liberties across a broad front: banning abortion; restricting voting rights; censoring how teachers can discuss race, gender and sexual orientation; and prohibiting transition care for transgender minors. No Democratic-leaning state has done any of those things. The result is the greatest gulf since the era of Jim Crow state-sponsored segregation between the rights guaranteed in some states and denied in others. The Republican-appointed Supreme Court majority has abetted this separation. Its decisions eviscerating federal oversight of state voting rules (in the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder case) and rescinding the national right to abortion (in 2022's Dobbs decision) freed red states to lurch right on both fronts. In oral arguments this month, the GOP-appointed justices appeared ready to push the states apart in a new way: by restricting federal courts from issuing nationwide injunctions. Concern about nationwide injunctions has been growing in both parties. Such injunctions remained relatively rare during the two-term presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, but Trump faced 64 of them in his first term and Joe Biden 14 in his first three years in office, according to a Harvard Law Review tabulation. Through the first 100 days of Trump's second term, federal courts have already imposed 25 nationwide injunctions against him. Trump has been uniquely vulnerable to this judicial pushback because he has moved so aggressively to challenge—and, in many instances, disregard — previously understood limits on presidential authority. But there's no question that each party now views nationwide injunctions as a critical weapon to stymie a president from the other party. Coalitions of red and blue state attorneys general have become especially reliant on the tactic. Each side has grown adept at challenging the incumbent president's actions primarily in district and circuit courts dominated by appointees from their own party, notes Paul Nolette, a Marquette University political scientist who tracks the state AG lawsuits. This aggressive forum shopping usually produces the desired result. Looking at the district court level, the Harvard analysis found that judges appointed by presidents of the other party imposed almost 95% of the nationwide injunctions directed against Biden or Trump in his first term. At the appellate court level, Adam Feldman, who founded the Empirical SCOTUS blog, calculated that the conservative 5th Circuit was much more likely to block presidential actions under Biden than Trump, while the liberal 9th circuit was, to an even greater extent, more likely to block Trump than Biden. These stark outcomes capture how the Supreme Court's verdict on injunctions could widen the distance between the states. If the Supreme Court hobbles their use, it will virtually guarantee that more federal courts simultaneously issue conflicting decisions to uphold or invalidate presidential actions. Trump's executive orders would be enforced in some places and not others. In the most extreme example—which plainly troubled the Court at its hearing—children born in the US to undocumented parents potentially would become citizens in some states, but not in others, depending on which courts allow Trump to overrule the 14th Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court would surely try to resolve more of these disputes, since conflicting appellate rulings are a big reason why it accepts cases. But the court would face practical limits on how many such disagreements it could referee. Across Trump's first term and Biden's four years combined, the Supreme Court considered only about 1 in 10 cases brought by attorneys general from the party out of power, Nolette calculates. Even if the court addressed more cases through its emergency docket, banning nationwide injunctions would likely result in more unresolved conflicts among the circuits on core questions of both presidential power and basic civil rights and liberties. That would harden the red-blue divide. Though the overlap isn't perfect, most Democratic-leaning states are covered by federal circuits in which Democratic presidents appointed most of the judges, and vice versa for Republican-leaning states. (The principal reason for this correlation is a Senate tradition that makes confirmation votes for federal district court nominees contingent on their home-state Senators' approval; the Senate applied that rule to federal appeals court nominees as well until 2018.) The protection of Democratic-leaning circuit courts could allow blue states to mostly fend off Trump's attempts to erase basic rights (like birthright citizenship) within their borders, or blunt his efforts to force them to adopt conservative social policies (as he is attempting by threatening their federal funding.) Conversely, the receptivity of Republican-leaning circuit courts would likely allow Trump to impose his agenda across red America, except in the (probably rare) cases when the Supreme Court intervenes to stop him. The nation's legal landscape would trend even more toward a patchwork. 'We've seen a huge divergence in red and blue states in policy and law ... and a potential ban on nationwide injunctions would just accelerate this trend,' said Jake Grumbach, a University of California at Berkeley political scientist who has studied the growing differences among the states. In a long arc spanning roughly from the Supreme Court decision banning segregated schools in 1954 to its ruling establishing nationwide access to same-sex marriage in 2015, the courts and Congress mostly nationalized civil rights and limited states' ability to curtail them. Now we are reverting toward a pre-1960s nation in which your rights largely depend on your zip code. Nationwide judicial injunctions are a flawed tool, and in a perfect world the two parties would collaborate on bipartisan reforms to limit them for future presidents. At some point, it would make sense to consider proposals that have emerged in both parties to require that a three-judge panel, rather than a single judge, approve any nationwide injunction. But to abruptly ban them now risks further unraveling the seams of an already fraying America.
Fox News
3 days ago
- Politics
- Fox News
DOUG SCHOEN: I'm a Harvard grad. Here's my take what Trump's doing right and wrong
The ongoing fight between the Trump administration and Harvard University has – unfortunately – taken on a life of its own. I say unfortunately, not because I believe the reforms President Donald Trump is demanding are wholly out of bounds – they are not, by any means. Rather, I say this because, as an alum of both Harvard undergrad and law school – and a longtime donor – the rampant antisemitism on campus, as well as the university's imperiousness, I cannot fault the White House for acting. Indeed, there is a legitimate argument to be made that Harvard must be reined in. That being said, there are concerns unique to Harvard that separate it from other universities. These concerns range from its handling of antisemitism, its silencing of voices who do not conform to far-left orthodoxy, as well as who it has hired. Notably, the concerns surrounding Harvard did not originate with its handling of antisemitism in the wake of Hamas' October 7th attack on Israel. It has long been the epicenter of Diversity, Education, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts in the U.S., to the point where the Supreme Court was forced to strike down its admissions criteria for being unfair to Asian students in June 2023. And yet, within just the past month, two serious incidents underscore how much further Harvard has to go in order to reform and redeem itself. First, the Harvard Law Review awarded a $65,000 grant to Ibraham Bharmal, after the Harvard Law School student was charged with assaulting an Israeli student, an incident caught on video. In effect, Harvard not only tolerated Bharmal's antisemitism, but rewarded it with a taxpayer-funded grant after he assaulted another student solely because of his nationality and Jewish identity. Second, Harvard recently revoked the tenure of Francesca Gino, a professor of business administration - who ironically is "well known for studying honesty" as Pilar Arias noted – after a four-year long fight over Gino's repeated falsification of data. To be clear, this is not to say that I agree with every action Trump has taken against Harvard. For example, blanket bans on accepting foreign students is excessive, but vetting their social media is inherently reasonable. Universities routinely do this for American students; thus it stands to reason Harvard should have the same – or even stricter – policy for foreigners. To that end, Harvard professor Steven Pinker recently published a piece in the New York Times which does a tremendous job at capturing the issues Harvard must address and the best ways to do so. Pinker, who makes his frustration towards the school's handling of antisemitism, free speech, hiring practices, and more very clear, makes one more key point: while Harvard has its "serious ailments," the reaction must also be calibrated. In other words, while Harvard should not have unfettered access to billions of dollars of taxpayer money, there is a real risk that across-the-board cuts harm America's scientific prowess without producing the – very necessary – reforms Trump is demanding. There is ample opportunity for a more targeted approach that can force Harvard to make these necessary changes without destroying the school's leadership in many vital fields. For instance, grants to social sciences can be canceled without touching money that funds medical or scientific research into cancer or other diseases. And while I agree with Pinker on that and other points he makes, perhaps the most important thing he points out is that the only thing thus far that has spurred Harvard to take any steps towards change has been Trump. As Pinker puts it, "The uncomfortable fact is that many of these reforms followed Mr. Trump's inauguration and overlap with his demands." Of course, it should not take the President of the United States to bring American universities inline with their own codes of conduct. Nor should it take the power of the White House to force Harvard to crackdown on the scourge of antisemitism and anti-American extremism that has overrun its campus. And yet, this is where we now find ourselves. It is my hope, as an alum, and as an American, that the Trump administration and Harvard come to a solution whereby the university realizes it cannot continue to permit – or reward – students who so blatantly violate the code of conduct, either of the university or of the United States.
Boston Globe
5 days ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Former chief justice of SJC, Herbert P. Wilkins, dies at 95
Wilkins died Tuesday, the statement said. Wilkins was a Harvard University graduate, and editor of the Harvard Law Review, who went on to chair Concord's Board of Selectman for six years in the early '60s and to work as town counsel in Acton and Concord in the late '60s and early '70s. 'Appointed in 1972, Justice Wilkins served on the Supreme Judicial Court with great distinction for almost three decades,' the justices said in their collective statement. 'As a jurist, he was known for his incisive rulings and meticulous attention to detail,' the statement said. 'His respectful and polite demeanor on and off the bench earned him the respect and admiration of all who worked with him.' 'The people of the Commonwealth are fortunate that a person of his intellect, dignity and commitment to justice was willing to devote his talents in their service,' the justices said. Advertisement They offered their 'deep condolences' to Wilkins' family. When Wilkins was nominated as chief justice in July 1996, he had been an associate justice for 24 years, the longest tenure of any associate at the time. Governor William F. Weld appointed Wilkins to the position later that year. Wilkins served as chief justice until he retired in 1999. In retirement, Wilkins taught law at Boston College. Advertisement Wilkins followed in his father's footsteps. Both men graduated from Harvard, and Raymond Sanger Wilkins also served as chief justice of the state's high court, from 1956 to 1970. The younger Wilkins earned his undergraduate degree at Harvard in 1951 and graduated magna cum laude from Harvard law School in 1954. Before he was a judge, Wilkins was an associate and partner in the Palmer & Dodge law firm in Boston. It was while Wilkins was chair of the planning board in Concord that the National Historic Sites Commission set its sights on the Lexington and Concord area for the creation of a national park. At that point, Wilkins said he 'was already deeply involved with the plans for the park,' according to In January 1959, Wilkins 'outlined the general scheme' for the park for the Concord Journal, which included a map 'which is pretty much along the lines of exactly what the park now consists of,' Wilkins said in the interview. Nine months later, on Sept. 21, 1959, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed a bill establishing Minute Man National Historical Park as a national park. As a jurist, Wilkins was twice recognized by the Boston Bar Association. In 1991, the association presented Wilkins with the prestigious Haskell Cohn Award for distinguished judicial service, and in 1997 he received a citation of judicial excellence. Wilkins is a former president of Harvard College's board of overseers and former trustee of Milton Academy and Phillips Exeter Academy. No information was immediately available about funeral services. Advertisement Tonya Alanez can be reached at
CBS News
7 days ago
- Politics
- CBS News
Keller: Putting the Trump administration's claims against Harvard to the truth test
The opinions expressed below are Jon Keller's, not those of WBZ, CBS News or Paramount Global. In the latest salvo of its ongoing war against the nation's oldest university, the Trump administration accused Harvard of "race discrimination" and told federal agencies to cancel $100 million worth of contracts with Harvard. We reviewed the specific claims the administration is making in a letter from the General Services Administration (GSA) and put them to the WBZ Truth Test. Remedial math class "These students can't add two and two and they go to Harvard, they want remedial math and they're going to teach remedial math at Harvard," said the president the other day. "Now wait a minute, so why would they get in?" The GSA letter calls it the "direct result of employing discriminatory factors instead of merit in admission decisions," part of its overall claim that Harvard has not reformed its admissions process in compliance with a 2023 Supreme Court ruling. But the university is enrolling fewer Black students since the court ruled. And Harvard claims that remedial math class was a response to pandemic-era learning loss among incoming freshmen. No evidence has been offered that it's an affirmative action by-product in any way. Harvard Law Review The feds also claim "discriminatory practices have been exposed" at the Harvard Law Review. And in fact, the Free Beacon website did obtain materials documenting a devotion to elevation of non-White voices in the student-run publication. A 2018 lawsuit against the Review, Harvard Law School and Harvard College was thrown out by a federal judge who found the plaintiffs "failed to supply even the slightest description of any member" actually harmed by similar behavior. And at Harvard and other schools, law reviews operate independently from the universities themselves. Two students honored One of the students charged with assault and battery on an Israeli student after a 2023 confrontation at Harvard Business School has been awarded a Law School fellowship. Another was named a class marshal at the Divinity School. The GSA calls that "a clear signal of tolerance for, if not outright endorsement of, student on student violence." But a Boston Municipal Court judge ruled they should not face trial, and do not have to admit wrongdoing. The singling out of those two students for honors - even though the judge ordered them to undergo anger management classes and perform community service - was bound to stir up controversy and seems like questionable judgement. So does using the case to broadly indict Harvard for decisions made independently by two of its many branches. The rest of the letter is a rehash of old grievances and, in the case of the "remedial math" issue, a very sketchy set of assumptions. Makes you wonder if all this is less about facts and reform than political grandstanding.
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Federal government looks to end contracts with Harvard
May 27 (UPI) -- The Trump administration announced Tuesday it plans to cancel all its contracts with Harvard University. The plan, first reported by The New York Times and confirmed by NBC News and CNN, would instruct federal agencies to sever contracts totaling about $100 million with the university. "The U.S. General Services Administration is assisting all federal agencies in a review for termination or transition of their federal government contracts with Harvard University and affiliates," a letter from Federal Acquisition Service Commissioner Josh Gruenbaum posted by The New York Times said. The letter alleged that "Harvard continues to engage in race discrimination, including in its admissions process and in other areas of student life," a reference to administration's claims that the university has failed to protect its students from anti-Semitic discrimination, and its alleged use of DEI programs and practices in regard to both admissions and consideration of employment. Gruenbaum also claimed in the letter that "troubling revelations have come to light regarding Harvard and its affiliates' potential discriminatory hiring practices, and that it may have violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that "Harvard is suspected of engaging in a pattern or practice of disparate treatment in hiring, promotion, compensation, and other personnel related actions." The letter further asserted that "discriminatory practices have been exposed at the Harvard Law Review," and that Harvard has "a disturbing lack of concern for the safety and well-being of Jewish students." The Trump administration announced last week that it had terminated around $450 million in grants to Harvard in addition to the nearly $3.2 billion in contracts and grants and contracts with the college it had frozen in April. The Education Departmentannounced in March that it had started a "comprehensive review of federal contracts and grants at Harvard University and its affiliates," in order to reportedly "ensure the university is in compliance with federal regulations, including its civil rights responsibilities." Harvard then filed a lawsuit in April against the federal government when the White House withdrew its federal funding but offered to reinstate the money if it enforced provisions in relation to on its employment and admissions procedures "as the basis for an agreement in principle that will maintain Harvard's financial relationship with the federal government." The Homeland Security Department had also removed Harvard's ability to enroll foreign students or keep current foreign students registered last week.
