11 hours ago
Trump wielded an ax at DEI. Federal judge was not having it.
Young rightly ruled that this kneecapping of basic medical research explicitly based on race and gender characteristics of those being studied is itself a form of racism decreed with apparently no care for the medical value and relevance of the banned research.
Advertisement
William August
Get The Gavel
A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Cambridge
The writer is a lawyer who previously served as general counsel responsible for administrative law matters for a Massachusetts state agency.
Administration runs smack into the rule of law and a courageous jurist
Chris Serres's article
US District Judge William G. Young, finding the administration to have been discriminatory against minorities and LGBTQ individuals, ruled that the cuts to more than 800 research grants by the National Institutes of Health were 'illegal and void.' The judge confirmed what millions of Americans now believe, namely that the government's wholesale assault on government programs and constitutional rights is not about policy nor based on facts. It is about revenge, retribution, and cruelty.
Advertisement
There can be no good-faith or legal basis for the wholesale assault on America's universities, law firms, medical researchers, scientists, and libraries, to name a few. This judge called it as he saw it.
In typical overheated fashion, a White House spokesperson attacked the judge's ruling as 'appalling.' Perhaps this spokesperson never had a civics lesson in high school. What this judge did was to apply the law and look for some rational basis for the cuts the administration had imposed. He found none.
Thomas F. Maffei
Melrose
The writer practices law in Boston.
