Latest news with #LandyaMcCafferty
Yahoo
26-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Court ruling further complicates Trump's anti-DEI push
President Trump's plans to rid the country's education system of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) were thrown further into chaos this week when a judge ruled against the Education Department's directives. States, fiercely divided on the issue, were already dealing with a delayed certification deadline and murky enforcement mechanisms before federal Judge Landya McCafferty issued her preliminary injunction on Trump's anti-DEI measures. 'Thankfully, many schools and districts and colleges and universities have been waiting to see what would happen because they knew and understood that what they were being asked to do was blatantly unlawful and nonsensical,' said Liz King, senior director of education equity at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. 'And so, hopefully this gives the assurance that schools need that they should not be bending to the whims of this administration,' King added. On Feb. 14, the Department of Education sent a 'Dear Colleague' letter to universities, saying they could risk losing federal funding if they do not get rid of DEI efforts. Weeks later, state education and K-12 district leaders were told they needed to certify their schools had no DEI programs or also risk losing federal funding. The Education Department also created a 'DEI portal' to allow parents and others to report programs or initiatives they feel are in violation of Trump's executive orders. All these efforts resulted in lawsuits and were blocked by three judges on Thursday, including two that were appointed by Trump. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump appointee, called the efforts unconstitutionally vague and said the letter did not 'delineate between a lawful DEI practice and an unlawful one.' The Education Department is likely to appeal the decision, with supporters encouraging it to get more specific when it does. 'As part of the appeal, my guess is that they are going to point […] at the actual practices that result in racial discrimination,' said Jonathan Butcher, the Will Skillman senior research fellow in education policy at the Heritage Foundation. 'From teacher trainings to types of programs that compel or ask someone to state that they are oppressive based on their skin color or otherwise […] some sort of racial favoritism,' Butcher added. 'Frankly, it's a step in the process.' The Hill has reached out to the Department of Education for comment. The lack of clarity on DEI in schools has been an issue since Education Secretary Linda McMahon's confirmation hearing, where she was unable to say if classes focusing on Black history would be allowed under her leadership. In the case of the 'Dear Colleague' letter, the department had to send out a follow-up memo after some universities were unclear if the guidance meant student groups based on race or ethnicity were still allowed. Meanwhile, multiple blue states were openly refusing to certify that their schools were DEI-free. 'As noted at the outset, MDE [Minnesota Department of Education] has already provided the requisite guarantee that it has and will comply with Title VI and its implementing regulation, and that includes our assurance that we do and will comply with Supreme Court cases interpreting the same. We submit this letter to serve as our response to this specific request,' Minnesota wrote to the federal government. The Department of Education is seeking to expand on the 2023 affirmative action Supreme Court ruling that said universities could not take race into account in admissions, holding that the decision reaches beyond the student application process. 'Unfortunately, we have seen too many schools flout or outright violate these obligations, including by using DEI programs to discriminate against one group of Americans to favor another based on identity characteristics in clear violation of Title VI,' Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights at the Education Department, wrote in the K-12 certification letter. Federal funding only makes up around 10 percent of money that goes to K-12 schools, although lower-income districts get a bit more help. At universities, the Trump administration has shown it is not afraid to pull millions or even billions of dollars in federal funding from schools it alleges have committed civil rights violations, even before any investigation takes place. One of those schools, Harvard University, is suing the administration over funding cuts that were announced after it refused to bow to a list of demands from Trump, including eliminating DEI policies. The day after the suit was filed, the leaders of more than 100 colleges and universities, including Cornell, Tufts and Princeton, issued a joint letter condemning Trump's 'political interference' and 'coercive use of public research funding.' But as some colleges have lost funding, others have preemptively began dismantling some of their DEI efforts. The University of Michigan said last month it would be closing its DEI offices. 'I understand the fear […] They've basically been blackmailing institutions with federal funds. They've created deliberate chaos with the [executive orders] and vague instructions so that people are preemptively complying with things,' said Andrea Abrams, executive director of the Defending American Values Coalition. 'The reasons [they] are afraid are sound, but the reasons to be brave are also sound,' she added. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
26-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Court ruling further complicates Trump's anti-DEI push
President Trump's plans to rid the country's education system of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) were thrown further into chaos this week when a judge ruled against the Education Department's directives. States, fiercely divided on the issue, were already dealing with a delayed certification deadline and murky enforcement mechanisms before federal Judge Landya McCafferty issued her preliminary injunction on Trump's anti-DEI measures. 'Thankfully, many schools and districts and colleges and universities have been waiting to see what would happen because they knew and understood that what they were being asked to do was blatantly unlawful and nonsensical,' said Liz King, senior director of education equity at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. 'And so, hopefully this gives the assurance that schools need that they should not be bending to the whims of this administration,' King added. On Feb. 14, the Department of Education sent a 'Dear Colleague' letter to universities, saying they could risk losing federal funding if they do not get rid of DEI efforts. Weeks later, state education and K-12 district leaders were told they needed to certify their schools had no DEI programs or also risk losing federal funding. The Education Department also created a 'DEI portal' to allow parents and others to report programs or initiatives they feel are in violation of Trump's executive orders. All these efforts resulted in lawsuits and were blocked by three judges on Thursday, including two that were appointed by Trump. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump appointee, called the efforts unconstitutionally vague and said the letter did not 'delineate between a lawful DEI practice and an unlawful one.' The Education Department is likely to appeal the decision, with supporters encouraging it to get more specific when it does. 'As part of the appeal, my guess is that they are going to point […] at the actual practices that result in racial discrimination,' said Jonathan Butcher, the Will Skillman senior research fellow in education policy at the Heritage Foundation. 'From teacher trainings to types of programs that compel or ask someone to state that they are oppressive based on their skin color or otherwise […] some sort of racial favoritism,' Butcher added. 'Frankly, it's a step in the process.' The Hill has reached out to the Department of Education for comment. The lack of clarity on DEI in schools has been an issue since Education Secretary Linda McMahon's confirmation hearing, where she was unable to say if classes focusing on Black history would be allowed under her leadership. In the case of the 'Dear Colleague' letter, the department had to send out a follow-up memo after some universities were unclear if the guidance meant student groups based on race or ethnicity were still allowed. Meanwhile, multiple blue states were openly refusing to certify that their schools were DEI-free. 'As noted at the outset, MDE [Minnesota Department of Education] has already provided the requisite guarantee that it has and will comply with Title VI and its implementing regulation, and that includes our assurance that we do and will comply with Supreme Court cases interpreting the same. We submit this letter to serve as our response to this specific request,' Minnesota wrote to the federal government. The Department of Education is seeking to expand on the 2023 affirmative action Supreme Court ruling that said universities could not take race into account in admissions, holding that the decision reaches beyond the student application process. 'Unfortunately, we have seen too many schools flout or outright violate these obligations, including by using DEI programs to discriminate against one group of Americans to favor another based on identity characteristics in clear violation of Title VI,' Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights at the Education Department, wrote in the K-12 certification letter. Federal funding only makes up around 10 percent of money that goes to K-12 schools, although lower-income districts get a bit more help. At universities, the Trump administration has shown it is not afraid to pull millions or even billions of dollars in federal funding from schools it alleges have committed civil rights violations, even before any investigation takes place. One of those schools, Harvard University, is suing the administration over funding cuts that were announced after it refused to bow to a list of demands from Trump, including eliminating DEI policies. The day after the suit was filed, the leaders of more than 100 colleges and universities, including Cornell, Tufts and Princeton, issued a joint letter condemning Trump's 'political interference' and 'coercive use of public research funding.' But as some colleges have lost funding, others have preemptively began dismantling some of their DEI efforts. The University of Michigan said last month it would be closing its DEI offices. 'I understand the fear […] They've basically been blackmailing institutions with federal funds. They've created deliberate chaos with the [executive orders] and vague instructions so that people are preemptively complying with things,' said Andrea Abrams, executive director of the Defending American Values Coalition. 'The reasons [they] are afraid are sound, but the reasons to be brave are also sound,' she added.
Indian Express
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
US Judges halt Trump administration's attempt to cut public school funding over DEI programs
Three federal judges blocked or delayed the Trump administration's recent efforts to clamp down on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in public schools. The rulings came in separate lawsuits filed by civil rights and teachers' organizations who argued that the administration's directives were vague, overreaching, and violated constitutional rights. Judges in New Hampshire, Maryland, and Washington, DC, issued rulings that limit or suspend implementation of recent guidance from the US Education Department. In New Hampshire US District Judge Landya McCafferty in New Hampshire said the administration's April guidance failed to clearly define DEI programs or clarify when such efforts might violate civil rights laws. 'The letter does not even define what a 'DEI program' is,' McCafferty wrote according to AP. She added that the guidance could amount to viewpoint discrimination. 'A professor runs afoul of the 2025 letter if she expresses the view in her teaching that structural racism exists in America, but does not do so if she denies structural racism's existence. That is textbook viewpoint discrimination.' In Maryland In Maryland, US District Judge Stephanie Gallagher postponed the implementation of the February 14 memo, which had extended a 2023 Supreme Court decision banning race-based college admissions to other aspects of education, such as hiring, scholarships, and housing. Gallagher found the memo was improperly issued and could force teachers to choose between 'being injured through suppressing their speech or through facing enforcement for exercising their constitutional rights.' That case was filed by the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). Randi Weingarten, president of the AFT, welcomed the ruling. In Washington In Washington, DC, a third judge granted a preliminary injunction against another element of the April guidance following a lawsuit by the NAACP, which argued that the administration failed to identify specific DEI practices that could trigger legal or financial penalties. The US Education Department had given states until Thursday to certify that local schools are in compliance with civil rights law, including the abandonment of what it called 'illegal DEI practices.' States that refused to submit the form risked losing access to Title I funds — the primary federal aid program for schools in low-income communities. President Donald Trump 's education secretary, Linda McMahon, emphasized the potential consequences in a Fox Business Network interview on Tuesday, saying states that refuse to sign could 'risk some defunding in their districts.' McMahon said the goal was to ensure 'no discrimination happening in any of the schools.'
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Federal judges temporarily block Education Department from enforcing DEI orders
Federal judges on Thursday dealt three separate blows to the Education Department's plans to enforce sweeping bans on diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in the nation's K-12 schools, in decisions that declare Trump administration policies — or the way they were enacted — likely violate the law. The rulings stem from lawsuits brought by the country's largest teacher unions and civil rights groups in separate jurisdictions. But each court decision carries national implications that temporarily block the administration from carrying out this month's directive that school systems comply with its interpretation of federal anti-discrimination law or risk sanctions. Despite the impact of each court ruling, states and schools may still face challenges to determine how the decisions apply locally — and whether educational institutions should delay or reverse policies they may already have implemented in response to the Trump administration's demands. A ruling in favor of a preliminary injunction requested by the National Education Association from Landya McCafferty, a New Hampshire federal judge appointed by former president Barack Obama, stopped short of issuing a nationwide order that halts the Education Department from enforcing its orders for schools. But McCafferty's ruling does apply to entities receiving federal funding that employ or contract with the NEA or its members — a key nuance that gives her decision considerable effect across much of the country where the largest U.S. labor union has a presence. The second court ruling from Stephanie Gallagher, a Maryland judge appointed by President Donald Trump, in a case brought by organizations including the American Federation of Teachers, delayed the enactment of a Feb. 14 department letter that asserts federal law prohibits schools from using race in decisions pertaining to all aspects of education. 'This Court takes no view as to whether the policies at issue here are good or bad, prudent or foolish, fair or unfair,' Gallagher wrote in her decision. 'But this Court is constitutionally required to closely scrutinize whether the government went about creating and implementing them in the manner the law requires,' she added. 'The government did not.' A third ruling issued in the District of Columbia by Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump appointee, further blocked the department from demanding schools certify their compliance with the Trump administration. The government's threats, the judge said, likely violate the Constitution. The Education Department did not respond to a request for comment. Education Secretary Linda McMahon's agency this month directed state school systems to quickly sign onto a Trump administration interpretation of federal anti-discrimination law or risk potential lawsuits, civil penalties and the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds. The agency later agreed to delay enforcing its orders until today's hearing, as part of a temporary agreement in the New Hampshire case. The NAACP filed a lawsuit to challenge that directive in mid-April, and won a swift ruling that granted part of its request for a preliminary injunction after today's hearing in the District of Columbia, according to court records. 'Our fight is far from over, but today's decision is a victory for Black and Brown students across the country, whose right to an equal education has been directly threatened by this Administration's corrosive actions and misinterpretations of civil rights law,' NAACP CEO Derrick Johnson said in a statement. The National Education Association, its New Hampshire affiliate and civil rights organizations sued the department in federal court last month to challenge agency guidance that directed schools to end their diversity, equity and inclusion programs. The American Federation of Teachers joined the American Sociological Association and an Oregon school district in its lawsuit, in conjunction with the Democracy Forward legal services organization. "Today's ruling allows educators and schools to continue to be guided by what's best for students, not by the threat of illegal restrictions and punishment," NEA President Becky Pringle said in a statement on the New Hampshire case. 'The court agreed that this vague and clearly unconstitutional requirement is a grave attack on students, our profession, honest history, and knowledge itself,' American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten said of the Maryland case. Thursday's rulings are not final decisions on the merits of the lawsuits, though they block the department from enforcing its orders while each case awaits further rulings. Each ruling, though, said each lawsuit was likely to succeed on at least some of their respective claims. The department's 'Dear Colleague' letter from February that asserts federal law prohibits schools from using race in decisions pertaining to all aspects of education is "unconstitutionally vague," McCafferty's 82-page ruling said, adding that the letter likely exceeds the department's statutory authority. That letter and a department "End DEI" federal tip line "raise the specter of a public 'witch hunt' that will sow fear and doubt among teachers lest they be publicly branded as peddlers of 'divisive ideologies' based on the Department's — or even private parties' — subjective assessments," the New Hampshire judge said. "While it may be true that a line must be drawn somewhere between the Department's lawful prerogative to enforce anti-discrimination law and its prohibition from controlling curriculum, the Letter and its associated documents do not toe that line," McCafferty wrote.
Politico
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Politico
Federal judges temporarily block Education Department from enforcing DEI orders
Federal judges on Thursday dealt three separate blows to the Education Department's plans to enforce sweeping bans on diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in the nation's K-12 schools, in decisions that declare Trump administration policies — or the way they were enacted — likely violate the law. The rulings stem from lawsuits brought by the country's largest teacher unions and civil rights groups in separate jurisdictions. But each court decision carries national implications that temporarily block the administration from carrying out this month's directive that school systems comply with its interpretation of federal anti-discrimination law or risk sanctions. Despite the impact of each court ruling, states and schools may still face challenges to determine how the decisions apply locally — and whether educational institutions should delay or reverse policies they may already have implemented in response to the Trump administration's demands. A ruling in favor of a preliminary injunction requested by the National Education Association from Landya McCafferty, a New Hampshire federal judge appointed by former president Barack Obama, stopped short of issuing a nationwide order that halts the Education Department from enforcing its orders for schools. But McCafferty's ruling does apply to entities receiving federal funding that employ or contract with the NEA or its members — a key nuance that gives her decision considerable effect across much of the country where the largest U.S. labor union has a presence. The second court ruling from Stephanie Gallagher, a Maryland judge appointed by President Donald Trump, in a case brought by organizations including the American Federation of Teachers, delayed the enactment of a Feb. 14 department letter that asserts federal law prohibits schools from using race in decisions pertaining to all aspects of education. 'This Court takes no view as to whether the policies at issue here are good or bad, prudent or foolish, fair or unfair,' Gallagher wrote in her decision. 'But this Court is constitutionally required to closely scrutinize whether the government went about creating and implementing them in the manner the law requires,' she added. 'The government did not.' A third ruling issued in the District of Columbia by Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump appointee, further blocked the department from demanding schools certify their compliance with the Trump administration. The government's threats, the judge said, likely violate the Constitution. The Education Department did not respond to a request for comment. Education Secretary Linda McMahon's agency this month directed state school systems to quickly sign onto a Trump administration interpretation of federal anti-discrimination law or risk potential lawsuits, civil penalties and the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds. The agency later agreed to delay enforcing its orders until today's hearing, as part of a temporary agreement in the New Hampshire case. The NAACP filed a lawsuit to challenge that directive in mid-April, and won a swift ruling that granted part of its request for a preliminary injunction after today's hearing in the District of Columbia, according to court records. 'Our fight is far from over, but today's decision is a victory for Black and Brown students across the country, whose right to an equal education has been directly threatened by this Administration's corrosive actions and misinterpretations of civil rights law,' NAACP CEO Derrick Johnson said in a statement . The National Education Association, its New Hampshire affiliate and civil rights organizations sued the department in federal court last month to challenge agency guidance that directed schools to end their diversity, equity and inclusion programs. The American Federation of Teachers joined the American Sociological Association and an Oregon school district in its lawsuit, in conjunction with the Democracy Forward legal services organization. 'Today's ruling allows educators and schools to continue to be guided by what's best for students, not by the threat of illegal restrictions and punishment,' NEA President Becky Pringle said in a statement on the New Hampshire case. 'The court agreed that this vague and clearly unconstitutional requirement is a grave attack on students, our profession, honest history, and knowledge itself,' American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten said of the Maryland case. Thursday's rulings are not final decisions on the merits of the lawsuits, though they block the department from enforcing its orders while each case awaits further rulings. Each ruling, though, said each lawsuit was likely to succeed on at least some of their respective claims. The department's 'Dear Colleague' letter from February that asserts federal law prohibits schools from using race in decisions pertaining to all aspects of education is 'unconstitutionally vague,' McCafferty's 82-page ruling said, adding that the letter likely exceeds the department's statutory authority. That letter and a department 'End DEI' federal tip line 'raise the specter of a public 'witch hunt' that will sow fear and doubt among teachers lest they be publicly branded as peddlers of 'divisive ideologies' based on the Department's — or even private parties' — subjective assessments,' the New Hampshire judge said. 'While it may be true that a line must be drawn somewhere between the Department's lawful prerogative to enforce anti-discrimination law and its prohibition from controlling curriculum, the Letter and its associated documents do not toe that line,' McCafferty wrote.
