Latest news with #LawReview
USA Today
2 days ago
- Business
- USA Today
Texas A&M AD Trev Alberts confirms scholarship expansion amid NCAA Settlement
Texas A&M AD Trev Alberts confirms scholarship expansion amid NCAA Settlement The world of college athletics is in a strange place right now, and there are several tough decisions athletics departments are going to have to navigate over the next few years. College football, the primary revenue driver for many programs, presents differing perspectives on how institutions should navigate financial strategies following the anticipated approval of the House v. NCAA settlement. According to The National Law Review, the settlement aims to: Distribute over $2.5 billion to former players who participated in competitive Division I college sports from 2016-2024 Create a revenue-sharing model that will allow schools to compensate their student-athletes directly Attempt to establish more oversight and control over student-athlete NIL payments One of the issues that will arise is the ability for teams to pay the student athletes, allowing them to remain competitive without having to eliminate other sports or scholarships. During the annual meetings, both Texas A&M President General Mark A. Welsh and Athletic Director Trev Alberts confirmed that despite this, they plan on funding every roster position while increasing the scholarship allotment. For an in-depth analysis, check out the National Law Review's coverage on how the settlement will reshape college athletics. Contact/Follow us @AggiesWire on X and like our page on Facebook to follow ongoing coverage of Texas A&M news, notes and opinions. Follow Jarrett Johnson on X: @whosnextsports1.
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump's new executive order promises to ‘unleash' law enforcement — but it won't make us safer
This Monday, President Donald Trump issued yet another executive order, this one titled 'Strengthening and Unleashing America's Law Enforcement to Pursue Criminals and Protect Innocent Citizens.' As the ominous 'unleashing' in the title makes clear, the order's proposals, like so many 'tough-on-crime' approaches, are far more about indulging in cruel punitiveness than in actually reducing crime. The order's opening line makes it clear that safety is not actually the goal. 'Safe communities,' it says, 'rely on the backbone and heroism of a tough and well-equipped police force.' While data, like that in a recent study, 'Police Force Size and Civilian Race,' makes it clear that policing can help reduce crime, literature reviews such as those produced by the Campbell Collaboration also make it clear that aggressive tactics are unhelpful if not actually counterproductive — as shown in a 2024 paper, 'The effects of hot spots policing on violence: A systematic review and meta-analysis." Moreover, it is increasingly apparent that nonpolice interventions can also significantly reduce crime, quite likely more effectively than policing, with additional social benefits and far fewer social costs. In other words, this executive order is about retaliation, punishment and brutality. It is wrapped in the veneer of 'public safety,' but pushes policies that are often least likely to produce actual safety. The order appears to have two goals. The first half is about politics and messaging. It's an effort to wrest back the narrative about criminal legal reform in support of those who fly Blue Lives Matter flags and instructs the attorney general to do some things she lacks the legal authority to do. The second — and more troubling — half is about policy. It lays out more viable routes Trump may use to cripple reform efforts, although its generic language makes it hard to pin down precisely what it is threatening. The political message of the first half is clear: It argues that the proper way to fight crime is to empower legally unaccountable police to use harsh, aggressive tactics to ramp up the number of people in prison. These tactics may not advance public safety, but they are satisfying ways to exert control over disliked groups. The order starts by instructing the attorney general to create a mechanism to ensure that police officers are indemnified when 'unjustly' sued — something that is basically not needed. A majority of states already have laws indemnifying police officers, and a study in the New York University Law Review of 45 major police departments found that officers were indemnified in 99.98% of the judgments against them. This is about messaging, not policy, and the message is 'police should not be sued, and we stand behind those who are.' What follows in the order are proposals — most of which are outside what the president can do via an executive order, such as using federal resources to increase police officer pay, strengthen legal protections for the police, seek enhancement punishments for those who harm police, and invest in the security and capacity of prisons. In almost all cases, federalism rules prevent Trump from directly telling local governments how to do these things. The feds can try to nudge states via incentive grant programs, but historically states have often been relatively unmoved by such programs, and, other than currently appropriated discretionary funds, the funding would have to come from Congress (despite Trump's fight to get more power of the purse). But like with indemnification, the point here is less about the policy specifics and more about using the presidential bully pulpit to place police at the center of how we think about public safety, and to provide moral (if not financial) support for traditional aggressive styles of law enforcement. The second part of the order, parts 4 to 6, focuses more on actual policies that the Trump administration may be able to use to subvert reforms and entrench traditional, aggressive policing. Part 4 first seeks, at a minimum, to ramp up the infamous 1033 program, which funnels retired military gear to local police departments — it's how the Los Angeles school district ended up with grenade launchers. (It talks of sharing 'assets,' though what those assets are is unstated, and the legal pathway to sharing them is unclear.) The second section of part 4 is the one that has alarmed people the most, but perhaps not for the right reasons. This part calls on the attorney general and the secretary of defense to 'determine how military and national security assets, training, non-lethal capabilities, and personnel can most effectively be utilized to prevent crime.' This has raised the specter of Trump using the Insurrection Act to circumvent the Posse Comitatus Act (which generally forbids federal troops from engaging in police activity) to use the military to crush protests. Which is definitely possible! The federal response to protests in Trump's first administration were often heavy-handed, and Trump's then-defense secretary, Mark Esper, indicated that Trump wished the response had been more violent still (section 6 of the order, urging greater use of Homeland Security Task Forces, also points in this direction). But military tanks on the streets is an escalation that the military itself may resist and that would likely engender significant public pushback. Jess Pishko, a journalist whose beat is conservative sheriffs, has pointed to a different, and more insidious, possible goal here, one whose invisibility may make it harder to resist: a massive increase in surveillance, by linking the police and national security resources, and by expanding law enforcement's access to intelligence gathering resources. This sort of behind-the-scenes collaboration can greatly expand the reach of law enforcement, but in a way far less likely to spark political resistance than the 101st Airborne marching down Main Street. The last key part of the order, section 5, points to another angle Trump may hope to use: directing the DOJ to charge and sue reformers. The first part of section 5 appears to threaten reform politicians by seeking to file federal criminal charges against anyone who obstructs law enforcement from carrying out their duties (although what those charges could be is somewhat unclear). The language is confusing, so it may also just be saying that when reformers refuse to make arrests or file charges, the feds will step in when they can to do so themselves. (The overall tenor of the order, though, seems to caution against assuming the less-harsh perspective.) Perhaps more significant is the second part of section 5, which suggests that Trump also plans to use the civil rights 'pattern or practice' lawsuits that the Obama and Biden DOJs filed to target abusive police departments to target reformers instead. Their less-punitive practices, the argument goes, are in fact the real source of discrimination and civil rights violations. This could, among other things, result in local reformers getting pushed into consent decrees with the feds that significantly limit their discretion. All told, the order represents a serious effort to roll back reforms, both directly (by supplying military gear and by threatening reformers with criminal and civil investigations) and indirectly (by forcefully asserting the tough-on-crime perspective that law enforcement should be encouraged to act aggressively while remaining almost entirely free of any meaningful oversight). It is not a recipe for actual public safety. But it is one for oppressive cruelty and retribution. This article was originally published on
Daily Mail
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Harvard suffers another blow as country's top law journal moves into the spotlight after damning exposé
The Trump administration is once again investigating Harvard University - this time over claims of racial discrimination at its storied Harvard Law Review. President Donald Trump has already gone after the Ivy League for rejecting demands to reform its hiring, admissions, and teaching practices in order to help fight antisemitism on campus. He also pulled funding for health research. Now, the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services are also investigating the school and its relation with the Harvard Law Review, they announced on Monday. The probes will focus on Harvard Law Review's policies and practices surrounding its membership and article selection to determine whether it is violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - which bars recipients of federal financial assistance 'from discriminating on the basis of race, color or national origin in the recipients' programs or activities.' The announcement comes just three days after The Washington Free Beacon published an article under the headline 'Exclusive: Internal Documents Reveal Pervasive Pattern of Racial Discrimination at Harvard Law Review.' The exposé cited leaked memos and Slack messages it said went back more than four years, which it says 'reveal a pattern of pervasive race discrimination at the nation's top law journal and threaten to plunge Harvard, already at war with the federal government, into even deeper crisis.' The article claimed that 'just over half of journal members... are admitted solely based on academic performance. 'The rest are chosen by a "holistic review committee" that has made the inclusion of "underrepresented groups" - defined to include race, gender, identity and sexual orientation it's "first priority,"' The Free Beacon reports, citing a 2021 resolution. It also claimed the Law Review 'incorporated race into nearly every stage of its article selection process' and that 'editors routinely kill or advance pieces based in part on the race of the author.' Spokespersons from both the Department of Education and Health and Human Services cited these claims in a joint statement announcing the investigation on Monday. They even quoted a Law Review editor from the article, who said it was 'concerning' that 'four of the five people' who wanted to reply to an article about police reform 'are white men.' The spokespersons also quoted another line in the article, which said that a different editor suggested 'that a piece should be subject to expedited review because the author was a minority.' 'Harvard Law Review´s article selection process appears to pick winners and losers on the basis of race, employing a spoils system in which the race of the legal scholar is as, if not more, important than the merit of the submission,' Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor said in a statement. 'Title VI´s demands are clear: recipients of federal financial assistance may not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin. No institution - no matter its pedigree, prestige, or wealth - is above the law. 'The Trump Administration will not allow Harvard, or any other recipients of federal funds, to trample on anyone's civil rights,' he added. But a spokesperson for Harvard Law noted that a similar claim was dismissed in 2018 by a federal court judge. A spokesperson for Harvard Law said in a statement that a similar claim was dismissed in 2018 by a federal court. The announcement comes just three days after The Washington Free Beacon published an article citing leaked memos and Slack messages it said went back more than four years, which it says 'reveal a pattern of pervasive race discrimination at the nation's top law journal' In that case, a group called Faculty, Alumni and Students Opposed to Racial Preferences sued the Law Review, the Harvard Law School and the Fellows of Harvard College, alleging the Law Review violated the requirements of Title VI and Title IX by 'using race and sex preferences to select its members.' A federal court judge, however, found that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing and had failed to state a claim. 'Harvard Law School is committed to ensuring that the programs and activities it oversees are in compliance with all applicable laws and to investigating any credibly alleged violations,' said Jeff Neal. 'The Harvard Law Review is a student-run organization that is legally independent from the law school.' Students make all of the organizational decisions and its members are all second- and third-year Harvard Law students, according to Politico. The investigations come as Harvard fights a freeze on $2.2 billion in federal grants that Trump imposed after the university refused to comply with its demands. White House officials had sent the university a letter earlier this month calling for the elite school to clarify its campus speech policies that limit the time, place and manner of protests and other activities. It also demanded academic departments at Harvard that 'fuel antisemitic harassment' be reviewed and changed to address bias and improve viewpoint diversity following contentious anti-Israel protests. But when Harvard officials sent back a message saying it would not comply with the Trump administration's demands, the Department of Education's Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism announced the freeze of multi-year grants and $60million in multi-year contract value to Harvard. It said that the school is not taking the problem of campus antisemitism seriously and must 'commit to meaningful change if they wish to continue receiving taxpayer support.' Soon after, President Trump also announced he would be pulling an additional $1 billion of the school's funding for health research. Harvard officials are now suing the Trump administration in a desperate attempt to reverse the funding freeze, which it said was 'arbitrary and capricious' and violated its First Amendment rights. 'The Government has not — and cannot — identify any rational connection between antisemitism concerns and the medical, scientific, technological, and other research it has frozen,' the lawsuit, filed in Boston federal court, stated. The research which is now at risk 'aims to save American lives, foster American success, preserve American security, and maintain America's position as a global leader in innovation.' Lawyers representing Harvard noted the government has not acknowledged 'the significant consequences that the indefinite freeze of billions of dollars in federal research funding will have on Harvard's research programs, the beneficiaries of that research, and the national interest in furthering American innovation and progress.' Monday marked the first time both sides met in court over the funding fight. But it seemed the Ivy League was starting to bow to the Trump administration's demands as it announced it would rename its Office of Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging to the Office of Community and Campus Life, the Harvard Crimson reports. The change was announced in a Monday afternoon email from Sherri A Charleston, who was previously Harvard's chief diversity officer but is now the university's chief community and campus life officer. 'In the weeks and months ahead, we will take steps to make this change concrete and work with all of Harvard's schools and units to implement these vital objectives, including shared efforts to reexamine and reshape the missions and programs of officers across the university,' she said.
Yahoo
17-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Number of injunctions halting Trump policies trounces predecessors by double
Nationwide injunctions ordered against the first Trump administration account for more than half of the total injunctions ordered against the federal government since 1963, data show. Nationwide injunctions are court orders that prevent the federal government from implementing a policy or law that has a cascading effect impacting the entire country, not just the parties involved in the court case. Trump's first administration faced 64 injunctions out of the total 127 nationwide injunctions issued since 1963. There were 32 injunctions issued against the Bush, Obama and Biden administrations collectively since 2001, meaning the first Trump administration was on the receiving end of double the amount of nationwide injunctions than his two predecessors and successor combined, according to the April 2024 edition of the Harvard Law Review. The Harvard Law Review found there were six injunctions issued against the Bush administration, 12 against the Obama administration and 14 against the Biden administration. Trump Asks Supreme Court To Review Ban On Birthright Citizenship Trump's return to the Oval Office in January has brought with it more than 120 lawsuits from activists, government employees and others targeting his executive orders and actions. The lawsuits have resulted in nationwide injunctions in some cases, including 15 in February alone, according to Trump's acting solicitor general, Sarah Harris. Read On The Fox News App Trump filed an emergency appeal Thursday asking the Supreme Court to narrow three injunctions that were issued to halt Trump's nullification of birthright citizenship. The emergency appeal requests the injunction only cover individuals directly impacted by the relevant courts. Injunction Lifted On Trump Executive Orders Slashing Federal Dei Support Harris argued in the emergency appeal that nationwide injunctions have hit "epidemic proportions" under the second Trump administration, noting that the federal government faced 14 universal injunctions in the first three years of the Biden administration compared to 15 leveled against the Trump admin in one month alone. "Years of experience have shown that the Executive Branch cannot properly perform its functions if any judge anywhere can enjoin every presidential action everywhere," Harris wrote. Officials in the first Trump administration also railed against the flow of injunctions ordered against the 45th president's policies and laws, including the former chiefs of the Department of Justice. "Courts issued an average of only 1.5 nationwide injunctions per year against the Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush administrations, and 2.5 per year against the Obama administration," former Assistant Attorney General Beth Williams said in February 2019. "In President Trump's first year in office, however, judges issued a whopping 20 nationwide injunctions – an eightfold increase. This matches the entire eight-year total of such injunctions issued against President Obama during his two terms. We are now at 30, matching the total number of injunctions issued against the first 42 presidents combined." Federal Judge Temporarily Stops Trump Admin From Firing 11 Intelligence Officers Assigned To Dei Programs Former Trump administration Attorney General Bill Barr added in remarks later in 2019 that there were "only 27 nationwide injunctions in all of the 20th century" compared to 37, at the time, against the first Trump administration. "Since President Trump took office, federal district courts have issued 37 nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch. That's more than one a month. By comparison, during President Obama's first two years, district courts issued two nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch, both of which were vacated by the Ninth Circuit. And according to the Department's best estimates, courts issued only 27 nationwide injunctions in all of the 20th century," the former AG said in May 2019. Trump Scores Big Legal Win Against Pulitzer Prize Board Members As Lawsuit Moves To Discovery Harvard Law Review found that the judges who issued the injunctions against the first Trump administration were overwhelmingly ordered by judges who were appointed by a Democrat. Democratic-appointed judges ordered 92.2% of the injunctions against the Trump administration, meaning just five of the 64 injunctions were ordered by Republican-appointed judges. Republican-appointed judges ordered all 14 of the nationwide injunctions against the federal government under the Biden administration. Injunctions under the Bush and Obama eras were much more bipartisan, with 50% of the injunctions in the Bush era issued by Democratic-appointed judges, and Republican-appointed judges ordering 58.3% of the 12 injunctions in the Obama era. Fox News Digital's Breanne Deppisch contributed to this report. Original article source: Number of injunctions halting Trump policies trounces predecessors by double
New York Times
24-02-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
An Important Judicial Tool Mysteriously Goes Missing at the Supreme Court
When the Supreme Court ruled last month in favor of a woman sent to death row in Oklahoma based on lurid sexual evidence, it used a judicial tool that was once commonplace but has all but disappeared in recent years. That tool is the summary reversal. Its decline is a mystery. Summary reversals are neither full-blown rulings issued after oral arguments nor terse orders on emergency applications on what critics call the shadow docket. They are a third thing: unsigned decisions on the merits based only on what is ordinarily the first round of briefs in the case, the ones arguing over whether the justices should grant review at all. 'We use them when a lower court decision is squarely contrary to one of our precedents,' Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. explained in a 2021 speech at Notre Dame. A new study to be published in The Columbia Law Review found that in the first 15 terms after Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined the court in 2005, it issued an average of more than seven summary reversals each term. That is a significant number in an era in which the court issues fewer than 70 signed decisions per term in argued cases. In the past four terms, by contrast, there was an average of about one summary reversal, Kalvis E. Golde, a law student at Columbia and a Scotusblog columnist, found in the study. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
