Latest news with #federalLaw
The National
6 days ago
- Politics
- The National
Columbia University reaches $200 million settlement with US federal government
Columbia University has agreed to pay the US government $200 million in a settlement over what the Trump administration called a wave of anti-Semitism on campus and a 'violation of federal law'. The embattled university has faced pressure from the administration over protests at its New York campus in 2023, at the start of Israel's war in Gaza, and 2024. An encampment on the university's main lawn for almost two weeks drew international attention. Columbia will pay the settlement over three years. In exchange, the university said in a statement, the federal government will unlock 'billions in current and future grants'. It was one of the first universities targeted by the administration over alleged anti-Semitism on campus amid protests against the Israel-Gaza war. In March, the Trump administration froze funding to several high-profile universities. Columbia said in its statement that the settlement codifies a set of reforms it announced in March, including a review of several of its Middle East studies programmes and identification of students who participate in protests on campus. Only one month after taking office for his second term as president, Donald Trump led a charge against Columbia, and eventually several other Ivy League and top-tier American universities, to block government grants on the pretext that it was in breach of laws against discrimination applicable to universities that receive federal funding. Mr Trump called the settlement a 'penalty', on his Truth Social platform on Wednesday, and said the school had been 'violating federal law'. He also said Columbia will pay 'over $20 million to their Jewish employees who were unlawfully targeted and harassed'. Columbia does not admit to wrongdoing, but 'the institution's leaders have recognised, repeatedly, that Jewish students and faculty have experienced painful, unacceptable incidents, and that reform was and is needed', the university said in its statement. Last week, Columbia announced it will adopt a controversial definition of anti-Semitism set by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance that has also been adopted by Harvard and NYU. The 'working definition' is accompanied by various examples of anti-Semitism, including 'applying double standards' to the conduct of the state of Israel or 'claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour'. Student protesters and members of the Arab and Muslim communities on campus have alleged discrimination, harassment and doxxing by the university or its affiliates based on their political views and personal backgrounds. This week, the Columbia Palestine Solidarity Coalition, a collective of student groups engaged in pro-Palestine actions, filed a lawsuit against the university alleging a violation of due process and 'overstepping their jurisdiction to censor pro-Palestinian speech'. The university said in its statement that the agreement with the federal government 'preserves Columbia's autonomy and authority'. Its response to the threats from the Trump administration over several months has drawn a backlash and claims of capitulation. Acting president Claire Shipman, the third head of the university since 2023, said in a message to the Columbia community on Wednesday that the lack of federal funding to the school 'would jeopardise [its] status as a world-leading research institution'. 'Following the law, attempting to resolve a complaint, is not capitulation,' Shipman said in a video statement released by the university in June. She had said Columbia would move to restore its government funding 'if possible'. By contrast, fellow Ivy League university Harvard took the US government to court in proceedings that began this week. On Wednesday, the State Department launched an investigation into whether Harvard should remain eligible to sponsor international student visas. 'Visa sponsorship is a privilege, and sponsors whose conduct tarnishes our nation's interests will lose that privilege,' Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on X.
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court allows Trump to remove 3 Democrats on the Consumer Product Safety Commission
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the Trump administration to remove three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, who had been fired by President Donald Trump and then reinstated by a federal judge. The justices acted on an emergency appeal from the Justice Department, which argued that the agency is under Trump's control and the president is free to remove commissioners without cause. That's what Trump did in May, providing no reason for removing all three Democratic commissioners on the five-person board, despite a federal law that allows commissioners to be fired only for 'neglect of duty or malfeasance.' The court provided a brief, unsigned explanation that the case is similar to earlier ones in which it allowed Trump to fire board members of other independent agencies, whom Congress protected from arbitrary dismissals. The three liberal justices dissented. "By means of such actions, this Court may facilitate the permanent transfer of authority, piece by piece by piece, from one branch of Government to another,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote for herself, as well as Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The commission helps protect consumers from dangerous products by issuing recalls, suing errant companies and more. The fired commissioners had been serving seven-year terms after being nominated by President Joe Biden. U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox in Baltimore ruled in June that the dismissals were unlawful. Maddox sought to distinguish the commission's role from those of other agencies where the Supreme Court has allowed firings to go forward. A month earlier, the high court's conservative majority declined to reinstate members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board, finding that the Constitution appears to give the president the authority to fire the board members 'without cause.' The administration has argued that all the agencies are under Trump's control as the head of the executive branch. Maddox, a Biden nominee, noted that it can be difficult to characterize the product safety commission's functions as purely executive. The fight over the president's power to fire could prompt the court to consider overturning a 90-year-old Supreme Court decision known as Humphrey's Executor. In that case from 1935, the court unanimously held that presidents cannot fire independent board members without cause. The decision ushered in an era of powerful independent federal agencies charged with regulating labor relations, employment discrimination, the airwaves and much else. But it has long rankled conservative legal theorists who argue the modern administrative state gets the Constitution all wrong because such agencies should answer to the president. Kagan wrote that the court already has 'all but overturned Humphrey's Executor.' Other removals are making their way to the high court, including the firing of a member of the Federal Trade Commission, the very agency at issue in Humphrey's Executor. Last week, a federal judge ordered Rebecca Slaughter reinstated as a commissioner. Slaughter returned to work Friday. By Tuesday, she had been sidelined again after an appeals court temporarily blocked the judge's order. The Consumer Product Safety Commission was created in 1972. Its five members must maintain a partisan split, with no more than three representing the president's party. They serve staggered terms. That structure ensures that each president has 'the opportunity to influence, but not control,' the commission, attorneys for the fired commissioners wrote in court filings. They argued the recent terminations could jeopardize the commission's independence. ___
Fox News
22-06-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
WATCH: GOP senators call for end to funding for sanctuary cities: ‘Enough is enough'
Republican senators told Fox News Digital that they are fed up with liberal sanctuary cities like Los Angeles attempting to impede federal immigration authorities from enforcing the law, some suggesting that it is time the legislative branch intervened to pull their funding. "We have to say, 'Enough is enough,'" said Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala. "I don't understand why we would continue to give federal dollars to someone who doesn't abide by federal law. I mean, think about that. That is very simple." Speaking with Fox News Digital in the Senate office building halls, Britt said, "There's been no more-litigated issue over the last four years than the millions and millions of illegal migrants coming across our border." "What a sanctuary city says is, 'You can commit a crime, we will allow for lawlessness, and we will not turn you over to the federal authorities.' I mean, think about that. That is absolute insanity, and we're not going to stand for it anymore," she said. "We have enabled that kind of bad behavior for too long," said Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio. "Look, the reality is, to use the term for my colleagues, 'Nobody is above the law.' So, if you have a mayor or county executive or a governor, whoever you want to say, that's not following federal law, that's completely unacceptable. And the tool that we have here is federal funding." "I've called for that in my campaign, and I think all Republicans, we should stick firm on that," he added. Meanwhile, Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., simply told Fox News Digital that sanctuary cities blocking immigration "shouldn't" receive federal funding. "I mean, first off, if you're a sanctuary city, you're not doing the right thing for your citizens. You're not keeping them safe," said Scott. "I think all of us are really frustrated because we don't have an immigration system that works. There's people who want to come to our country legally and work in our country and go home. That's what we ought to be focused on, how do we improve that, but make sure that if you're not vetted, you shouldn't be able to come into this country." On the other side of the aisle, Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., told Fox News Digital that sanctuary city officials not cooperating with ICE and federal authorities "is not an issue in Virginia, because . . . I'm not aware of a sanctuary city in Virginia." Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, responded to Fox News Digital by saying, "I don't have any comment on that, I'm focused right now on what's going on in the Middle East." Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., said, "I think that everybody should follow the law" or "accept the consequences." "I can't tell you that I know legally what are the consequences that a community deliberately disobeying something from the federal government. But whatever those consequences are, if a community makes that decision, then it has to bear the consequences," Cassidy added. Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Tenn., said that sanctuary policies "led in many ways to these LA riots, that the L.A. police weren't willing to help when our ICE agents were in trouble." "What we cannot tolerate is local officials impeding ICE officers from doing their job, and that's exactly what's happening in some of these sanctuary cities," said Marshall. "So, if that means the power of the purse, then so be it. But whatever we do, President Trump took an oath, I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution to make all of us safe."
CBS News
12-06-2025
- Business
- CBS News
Are debt collectors illegally re-aging your accounts? Here's how to find out.
We may receive commissions from some links to products on this page. Promotions are subject to availability and retailer terms. Before you pay a debt collector, it's important to ensure that they're not re-aging your old debts. Getty Images If your old debt has been sold to a debt collector, you know how stressful the issue can be. Debt collectors can be quite aggressive when trying to collect what's owed on your unpaid credit card or loan debt and it's not uncommon to receive numerous phone calls, emails and other types of correspondence during the process. But if you've received calls or notices about a credit card debt that should have expired years ago, you might be dealing with a practice called "re-aging," where debt collectors essentially reset the clock on old debts to make them appear newer than they actually are. This deceptive tactic has become increasingly common as debt buyers scoop up portfolios of old, often uncollectible debts for pennies on the dollar. By making these debts appear fresh, debt collectors can pursue payment more aggressively and potentially even take legal action that would otherwise be barred by statutes of limitations. The practice not only violates federal law but can also devastate your credit score and financial well-being, even if you aren't technically responsible for repaying the outdated debt. That's why knowing how to spot and fight debt re-aging could save you thousands of dollars and protect your credit history. But how exactly can you do that? Well, the good news is that spotting these issues may be easier than you think. Take steps to get rid of your old debt today. How to know if debt collectors are re-aging your accounts The first red flag to watch for is any debt that suddenly reappears on your credit report after having disappeared for months or years. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), most negative information, including collection accounts, must be removed from your credit report after seven years. That seven-year period starts from the date you first missed a payment and never caught up, which is known as the "date of first delinquency." It does not start at the date the account was sold or at the date a collector last tried to call you. But in some cases, a debt collector may manipulate that date, either by mistake or on purpose, to make the debt seem newer. After all, if they change the delinquency date to something more recent, it keeps the account on your credit for longer than it legally should be. Why would they do that? The answer is simple: It boosts their chances of getting paid. A fresher-looking account can appear more urgent and damaging, which can pressure people into paying, even if they're no longer legally obligated to. It also makes the debt collector's portfolio more attractive when selling debts to other agencies. So, to avoid being stuck with a debt that you don't owe any longer, you'll need to check your reports for re-aging, which can be done by following these steps: Get your credit reports: Start by pulling your credit reports Start by Look for the date of first delinquency: The date of first delinquency is the most important detail to look for. You need to identify when the account originally became past due, not when the debt collector got involved or the last activity date. The date of first delinquency is the most important detail to look for. You need to identify when the account originally became past due, not when the debt collector got involved or the last activity date. Do the math: If it's been more than seven years since the original delinquency, that account should no longer be showing. If it is, or if the delinquency date looks suspiciously recent, you may have a re-aged account. If it's been more than seven years since the original delinquency, that account should no longer be showing. If it is, or if the delinquency date looks suspiciously recent, you may have a re-aged account. Watch for duplicate listings: The same debt sometimes appears multiple times with different dates or collector names. That's a red flag, especially if the new listing pushes the clock back. Find out how to tackle your debt problems for good. What to do if a debt has been re-aged If you find that a debt on your credit report has been re-aged, here's what to do to fix the issue: File a dispute with the credit bureaus If you think a debt is being re-aged, your first move should be to dispute it directly with the credit bureaus. You can do this online through their websites. Include any documentation you have, whether that's old statements, letters from the original creditor or other proof of the real timeline. The bureaus are required to investigate your dispute within 30 days. If the debt collector can't prove the date is accurate, the item must be corrected or removed entirely. Report the debt collector You can also file a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) if you find re-aged debts on your credit report. The CFPB is the agency that keeps tabs on illegal practices by debt collectors, including re-aging, and they may be able to help resolve the issue. Understand your rights Re-aging isn't just unethical. It's also a violation of the FCRA and possibly the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). These laws protect you from deceptive and unfair collection tactics. If you can prove a violation, you may even be able to sue the debt collector for damages. Don't accidentally restart the statute of limitations If you make a payment or acknowledge the debt in writing, you could restart the statute of limitations for being sued on the debt, but not the reporting period for your credit report. These timelines are different. Re-aging affects your credit report timeline, not your legal liability. But either way, you don't want to give a debt collector more leverage than they're legally entitled to. The bottom line Old debt doesn't have to haunt your credit report forever. If a collection account is showing up years after it should've disappeared, something may be wrong — and it could be an illegal case of re-aging. So, take time to check your credit reports, look closely at the dates and don't hesitate to push back if something doesn't make sense. You have a legal right to accurate credit reporting, and you don't have to tolerate tactics designed to keep bad debt alive past its expiration date.
Fox News
04-06-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
DOJ sues Texas for offering in-state college tuition to illegal immigrants in alleged violation of federal law
The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a complaint against Texas to block the state's two-decade-old law that provides in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. The complaint was filed Wednesday in the Northern District of Texas against the State of Texas and several Texas officials to get Texas to comply with federal requirements. Under federal law, higher education institutions are prohibited from providing benefits to illegal aliens not offered to U.S. citizens. The DOJ's complaint aims to enjoin the enforcement of a Texas law requiring colleges and universities to provide in-state tuition rates for immigrants who maintain residency in Texas, regardless of whether they are in the U.S. legally. According to the DOJ, the laws in Texas "blatantly" conflict with federal law, putting them in conflict with the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. "Under federal law, schools cannot provide benefits to illegal aliens that they do not provide to U.S. citizens," Attorney General Pam Bondi said. "The Justice Department will relentlessly fight to vindicate federal law and ensure that U.S. citizens are not treated like second-class citizens anywhere in the country." The lawsuit was filed in response to two executive orders signed by President Donald Trump since returning to the Oval Office in January. The executive orders were signed to ensure illegal immigrants cannot receive taxpayer benefits or preferential treatment. One of the orders, "Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders," ordered all agencies to "ensure, to the maximum extent permitted by law, that no taxpayer-funded benefits go to unqualified aliens." The other order, "Protecting American Communities From Criminal Aliens," directs officials to "take appropriate action to stop the enforcement of State and local laws, regulations, policies, and practices favoring aliens over any groups of American citizens that are unlawful, preempted by Federal law, or otherwise unenforceable, including State laws that provide in-State higher education tuition to aliens but not to out-of-State American citizens." Fox News Digital has reached out to Gov. Greg Abbott's office for comment. Widely known as the Texas Dream Act, the legislation being targeted by the Trump administration was introduced in February 2001, when federal courts ruled that a child's immigration status should not prevent the child's access to primary and secondary schools. But when it came to higher education, federal immigration status could have prevented some children born outside the U.S. from getting a college education from a public institution because of higher rates charged to nonresidents. When children born outside the U.S. graduated from Texas high schools, those students were required by previous state law to pay a higher rate to Texas public colleges or universities, as if they were from out of state or were international students. The legislation, signed by Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, June 16, 2001, removed federal immigration status as a factor in determining eligibility to pay in-state tuition at Texas public colleges and universities for students who graduate from a Texas high school and who meet the minimum residency, academic and registration criteria.
