Latest news with #legalchallenges
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump Executive Order on College Sports Unlikely to Move the Needle
President Donald Trump is weighing an executive order that would attempt to stabilize the business and law of college sports but might instead kindle new legal challenges. A draft of the order, obtained by Yahoo, adopts the viewpoint that big-time college sports has morphed into an unworkable, volatile and overly litigious framework. The order negatively references unlimited transfers, the prospect of college athletes gaining employment recognition and a 'chaotic race to the bottom' with states opportunistically using NIL laws to supply 'competitive advantages' to their universities. More from Sporticast 468: 'Pay Us What You Owe Us' Nevada WR Catches Court Win as NCAA Eligibility Cases Split NBA Seeks Supreme Court Review of 'Bork Bill' Case After Split Rulings Dubbed 'Saving College Sports,' the order directs several federal officials and agencies— including the U.S. Attorney General, the Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Secretary of Education, the U.S. Secretary of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board—to pursue policies that would allegedly ensure the 'long-term availability' of college sports opportunities. Another aspiration is 'greater uniformity, predictability, and cooperation with respect to Federal and State laws and enforcement practices concerning college athletics.' The order provides several specific requests. They include agency actions within 60 or 120 days and a directive that 15 U.S.C. 7802—the Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act, a law that Sportico revealed has not been enforced—be enforced. For the most part, however, the order is aspirational and refrains from enunciating policy positions. Notably absent are declarations that the NCAA and its members ought to be exempt from antitrust scrutiny or that college athletes aren't employees. The absence of many specifics is important for several reasons. For starters, agencies that would be directed by Trump are already capable of issuing regulations and other administrative actions to exert control over college sports. To that point, in the last week of Joe Biden's presidency, federal agencies entered the college sports legal debate without an accompanying executive order. The Department of Education issued a fact sheet expressing that colleges paying athletes for their NIL counts as athletic financial assistance under Title IX. A month later, Trump's Department of Education rescinded that fact sheet. Biden's Department of Justice also filed a statement of interest in the House litigation. The statement expressed that a revenue share cap of $20.5 million, while better than not sharing any revenue, is still an antitrust problem, because it's a cap that hasn't been collectively bargained. The DOJ under Trump didn't pursue the issue as U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken weighed the granting of final approval to the settlement. To be sure, a Trump executive order would elevate the importance and urgency for those agencies to tackle college sports issues. But it's not an essential ingredient. Agencies could act on their own just as they did in January. Also consider how agencies would implement Trump's order. The more agencies look under the hood of college sports, the more likely they'll see potential drawbacks and limitations of weighing in. The federal government doesn't control the universe of college sports issues, some of which extend well beyond government control. Take employment. A federal declaration that college athletes aren't employees would presumably mean they're not—at least as the Trump administration sees it—employees under the two most relevant federal laws, the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. That type of declaration would be challenged in court, since it is a debatable interpretation of federal statutes. Put another way, whether college athletes are employees under the NLRA or FLSA is ultimately a question for the courts, not an agency or even the president. That is particularly true given the U.S. Supreme Court's decision last year in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Judges are no longer expected to defer to agency interpretation when a statute is ambiguous, meaning judicial deference to agencies, including those in the Trump administration, has been reduced. Even assuming an agency declaration that college athletes aren't employees withstood judicial review, it wouldn't foreclose the possibility of athletes being recognized as employees under states' laws. There are labor and employment laws in all 50 states, and they vary. There's also the chance that a college or conference voluntarily recognizes athletes as employees, a move that has not happened at least in part because it would violate NCAA rules. But such a move is not implausible—especially since collective bargaining with college athletes would put an end to antitrust lawsuits over those athletes' rights. Even if an agency declaration says that any, and all, conflicting state employment laws are preempted by federal action, that wouldn't automatically make preemption happen. Preemption is a highly litigated topic that intersects with powers enunciated by the U.S. Constitution and would surely be litigated in this context. Antitrust is another relevant subject for Trump's possible executive order. The draft states that though the settlement resolving the House, Carter and Hubbard antitrust litigations will provide back pay and revenue sharing, it 'provides little assurance that it will not soon be upended by new litigation seeking more compensation with fewer rules, further reducing in the number of student-athletes.' Trump might want the NCAA, conferences and colleges to be exempt from antitrust scrutiny or to receive deferential treatment. On the surface, a Trump or agency-announced antitrust exemption or deferential standard would make it more difficult for athletes to sue regarding topics like compensation and eligibility. But the president and his agencies can't change the language of the Sherman Act, which has applied to college sports for decades and which the U.S. Supreme Court in NCAA v. Alston (2021) said not only governs NCAA rules but does so without deference. It's also noteworthy that conservative judges, including those whom Trump nominated, have been among the most critical of college sports amateurism from an antitrust perspective. And there are state antitrust laws, too, that fall outside of federal authority and thus outside any executive order. Trump might want the Department of Justice to take a permissive approach to antitrust issues in college sports. One could say the DOJ under both Republican and Democratic presidents has already done that: Save for the DOJ joining Ohio v. NCAA (2024), which concerned transfer rules, and suing the NCAA in 1998 under the Americans with Disabilities Act over treatment of college athletes with learning disabilities, the DOJ has largely been on the sidelines. Meanwhile, a long list of athletes, from Ed O'Bannon to Shawne Alston, sued the NCAA on antitrust grounds. That highlights a key point: Private individuals and businesses can bring antitrust lawsuits. The government isn't needed since federal antitrust law provides for a private right of action. No matter how the DOJ and other agencies oversee college sports, athletes will continue to be able to bring antitrust claims. There are still other legal complications from a potential executive order on college sports. Any order that leads to college athletes being denied the same rights and opportunities as their classmates would invite an Equal Protection lawsuit. Restricting athletes' expressions, including through limiting NIL opportunities, could trigger First Amendment and right of publicity litigation. Trump might not need an executive order to influence college sports. If the SCORE Act passes Congress—a big 'if' given that college sports bills in Congress in recent years have all flamed out—Trump would have the chance to sign a college sports act into law. Of course, the SCORE Act could be challenged in court, including on grounds mentioned above. But given that it would be federal law, it would stand a stronger chance of sticking than an executive order. Best of College Athletes as Employees: Answering 25 Key Questions
The Independent
4 days ago
- Business
- The Independent
HS2 has suffered ‘significant cost' from legal challenges by public bodies
HS2 has incurred 'significant cost' because public bodies have launched nine legal challenges against it, Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said. The Cabinet minister noted that in 'almost all cases', the courts have found in favour of the high-speed rail scheme between London and Birmingham. HS2 Ltd was given the power to construct the railway when the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Act received royal assent in February 2017. The most recent of the nine legal challenges the project has faced from other public bodies since then was launched by North Warwickshire Borough Council in relation to the extension of the under-construction Bromford Tunnel. In May, the High Court rejected the council's bid for a judicial review. Since royal assent was obtained, there have also been 25 appeals relating to the HS2 planning regime. In a six-monthly written update to Parliament on HS2, Ms Alexander acknowledged it is 'right there are checks and balances embedded in our legal and planning systems', but expressed concern these are being used to 'frustrate the delivery of consented projects'. She wrote: 'The delivery of HS2 has continued during this period to be the subject of both legal and planning challenges, which have added significant cost, uncertainty and potential for delay.' She added: 'The Government continues to monitor this issue closely and will consider further interventions where appropriate, alongside its wider work on planning reform.' Ms Alexander also announced that she has lifted safeguarding on the majority of land protected for HS2's former Phase 2b eastern leg between Birmingham and Leeds, which was cancelled in November 2021. Safeguarding is used to stop land from being developed in a way that would conflict with future schemes. More than 550 properties were acquired by HS2 Ltd ahead of the planned construction of Phase 2b's eastern section. Removing safeguarding means the process of selling them can begin. Former owners of property within the safeguarding zone, which was acquired by HS2 Ltd will be given the opportunity to buy it back at the current market value. HS2 has suffered repeated delays and soaring costs. Ms Alexander announced last month there was 'no route' to meet the target date of having HS2 services running by 2033. In her update to Parliament, the Secretary of State said her department is working with HS2 Ltd chief executive Mark Wild to 'reset' the project, with the aim of providing an 'updated delivery baseline and funding envelope in 2026'. She went on: 'Until this work is completed, this Government is not in a position to say with confidence how much HS2 will cost or when it will be delivered. 'That is a deeply unsatisfactory position, but it is necessary to complete the hard work we have embarked upon.' HS2 was originally planned to run between London and Birmingham, then on to Manchester and Leeds, but the project was severely curtailed by the Conservatives in power because of spiralling costs. The first phase was initially scheduled to open by the end of 2026, but this was later pushed back to between 2029 and 2033. In 2013, HS2 was estimated to cost £37.5 billion (at 2009 prices) for the entire planned network, including the now-scrapped extensions from Birmingham. In June last year, HS2 Ltd assessed the cost for the line between London and Birmingham would be up to £66 billion.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
HS2 has suffered ‘significant cost' from legal challenges by public bodies
HS2 has incurred 'significant cost' because public bodies have launched nine legal challenges against it, Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said. The Cabinet minister noted that in 'almost all cases', the courts have found in favour of the high-speed rail scheme between London and Birmingham. HS2 Ltd was given the power to construct the railway when the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Act received royal assent in February 2017. The most recent of the nine legal challenges the project has faced from other public bodies since then was launched by North Warwickshire Borough Council in relation to the extension of the under-construction Bromford Tunnel. In May, the High Court rejected the council's bid for a judicial review. Since royal assent was obtained, there have also been 25 appeals relating to the HS2 planning regime. In a six-monthly written update to Parliament on HS2, Ms Alexander acknowledged it is 'right there are checks and balances embedded in our legal and planning systems', but expressed concern these are being used to 'frustrate the delivery of consented projects'. She wrote: 'The delivery of HS2 has continued during this period to be the subject of both legal and planning challenges, which have added significant cost, uncertainty and potential for delay.' She added: 'The Government continues to monitor this issue closely and will consider further interventions where appropriate, alongside its wider work on planning reform.' Ms Alexander also announced that she has lifted safeguarding on the majority of land protected for HS2's former Phase 2b eastern leg between Birmingham and Leeds, which was cancelled in November 2021. Safeguarding is used to stop land from being developed in a way that would conflict with future schemes. More than 550 properties were acquired by HS2 Ltd ahead of the planned construction of Phase 2b's eastern section. Removing safeguarding means the process of selling them can begin. Former owners of property within the safeguarding zone, which was acquired by HS2 Ltd will be given the opportunity to buy it back at the current market value. HS2 has suffered repeated delays and soaring costs. Ms Alexander announced last month there was 'no route' to meet the target date of having HS2 services running by 2033. In her update to Parliament, the Secretary of State said her department is working with HS2 Ltd chief executive Mark Wild to 'reset' the project, with the aim of providing an 'updated delivery baseline and funding envelope in 2026'. She went on: 'Until this work is completed, this Government is not in a position to say with confidence how much HS2 will cost or when it will be delivered. 'That is a deeply unsatisfactory position, but it is necessary to complete the hard work we have embarked upon.' HS2 was originally planned to run between London and Birmingham, then on to Manchester and Leeds, but the project was severely curtailed by the Conservatives in power because of spiralling costs. The first phase was initially scheduled to open by the end of 2026, but this was later pushed back to between 2029 and 2033. In 2013, HS2 was estimated to cost £37.5 billion (at 2009 prices) for the entire planned network, including the now-scrapped extensions from Birmingham. In June last year, HS2 Ltd assessed the cost for the line between London and Birmingham would be up to £66 billion.
Reuters
14-07-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
Two-thirds of the DOJ unit defending Trump policies in court have quit
WASHINGTON, July 14 (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department unit charged with defending against legal challenges to signature Trump administration policies - such as restricting birthright citizenship and slashing funding to Harvard University - has lost nearly two-thirds of its staff, according to a list seen by Reuters. Sixty-nine of the roughly 110 lawyers in the Federal Programs Branch have voluntarily left the unit since President Donald Trump's election in November or have announced plans to leave, according to the list compiled by former Justice Department lawyers and reviewed by Reuters. The tally has not been previously reported. Using court records and LinkedIn accounts, Reuters was able to verify the departure of all but four names on the list. Reuters spoke to four former lawyers in the unit and three other people familiar with the departures who said some staffers had grown demoralized and exhausted defending an onslaught of lawsuits against Trump's administration. "Many of these people came to work at Federal Programs to defend aspects of our constitutional system," said one lawyer who left the unit during Trump's second term. "How could they participate in the project of tearing it down?" Critics have accused the Trump administration of flouting the law in its aggressive use of executive power, including by retaliating against perceived enemies and dismantling agencies created by Congress. The Trump administration has broadly defended its actions as within the legal bounds of presidential power and has won several early victories at the Supreme Court. A White House spokesperson told Reuters that Trump's actions were legal, and declined to comment on the departures. "Any sanctimonious career bureaucrat expressing faux outrage over the President's policies while sitting idly by during the rank weaponization by the previous administration has no grounds to stand on," White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement. The seven lawyers who spoke with Reuters cited a punishing workload and the need to defend policies that some felt were not legally justifiable among the key reasons for the wave of departures. Three of them said some career lawyers feared they would be pressured to misrepresent facts or legal issues in court, a violation of ethics rules that could lead to professional sanctions. All spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal dynamics and avoid retaliation. A Justice Department spokesperson said lawyers in the unit are fighting an "unprecedented number of lawsuits" against Trump's agenda. "The Department has defeated many of these lawsuits all the way up to the Supreme Court and will continue to defend the President's agenda to keep Americans safe," the spokesperson said. The Justice Department did not comment on the departures of career lawyers or morale in the section. Some turnover in the Federal Programs Branch is common between presidential administrations, but the seven sources described the number of people quitting as highly unusual. Reuters was unable to find comparative figures for previous administrations. However, two former attorneys in the unit and two others familiar with its work said the scale of departures is far greater than during Trump's first term and Joe Biden's administration. The exits include at least 10 of the section's 23 supervisors, experienced litigators who in many cases served across presidential administrations, according to two of the lawyers. A spokesperson said the Justice Department is hiring to keep pace with staffing levels during the Biden Administration. They did not provide further details. In its broad overhaul of the Justice Department, the Trump administration has fired or sidelined dozens of lawyers who specialize in prosecuting national security and corruption cases and publicly encouraged departures from the Civil Rights Division. But the Federal Programs Branch, which defends challenges to White House and federal agency policies in federal trial courts, remains critical to its agenda. The unit is fighting to sustain actions of the cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency formerly overseen by Elon Musk; Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship and his attempt to freeze $2.5 billion in funding to Harvard University. "We've never had an administration pushing the legal envelope so quickly, so aggressively and across such a broad range of government policies and programs," said Peter Keisler, who led the Justice Department's Civil Division under Republican President George W. Bush. "The demands are intensifying at the same time that the ranks of lawyers there to defend these cases are dramatically thinning." The departures have left the Justice Department scrambling to fill vacancies. More than a dozen lawyers have been temporarily reassigned to the section from other parts of the DOJ and it has been exempted from the federal government hiring freeze, according to two former lawyers in the unit. A Justice Department spokesperson did not comment on the personnel moves. Justice Department leadership has also brought in about 15 political appointees to help defend civil cases, an unusually high number. The new attorneys, many of whom have a record defending conservative causes, have been more comfortable pressing legal boundaries, according to two former lawyers in the unit. "They have to be willing to advocate on behalf of their clients and not fear the political fallout," said Mike Davis, the head of the Article III Project, a pro-Trump legal advocacy group, referring to the role of DOJ lawyers in defending the administration's policies. People who have worked in the section expect the Federal Programs Branch to play an important role in the Trump administration's attempts to capitalize on a Supreme Court ruling limiting the ability of judges to block its policies nationwide. Its lawyers are expected to seek to narrow prior court rulings and also defend against an anticipated rise in class action lawsuits challenging government policies. Lawyers in the unit are opposing two attempts by advocacy organizations to establish a nationwide class of people to challenge Trump's order on birthright citizenship. A judge granted one request on Thursday. Four former Justice Department lawyers told Reuters some attorneys in the Federal Programs Branch left over policy differences with Trump, but many had served in the first Trump administration and viewed their role as defending the government regardless of the party in power. The four lawyers who left said they feared Trump administration policies to dismantle certain federal agencies and claw back funding appeared to violate the U.S. Constitution or were enacted without following processes that were more defensible in court. Government lawyers often walked into court with little information from the White House and federal agencies about the actions they were defending, the four lawyers said. The White House and DOJ did not comment when asked about communications on cases. Attorney General Pam Bondi in February threatened disciplinary action against government lawyers who did not vigorously advocate for Trump's agenda. The memo to Justice Department employees warned career lawyers they could not "substitute personal political views or judgments for those that prevailed in the election." Four of the lawyers Reuters spoke with said there was a widespread concern that attorneys would be forced to make arguments that could violate attorney ethics rules, or refuse assignments and risk being fired. Those fears grew when Justice Department leadership fired a former supervisor in the Office of Immigration Litigation, a separate Civil Division unit, accusing him of failing to forcefully defend the administration's position in the case of Kilmar Abrego, the man wrongly deported to El Salvador. The supervisor, Erez Reuveni, filed a whistleblower complaint, made public last month, alleging he faced pressure from administration officials to make unsupported legal arguments and adopt strained interpretations of rulings in three immigration cases. Justice Department officials have publicly disputed the claims, casting him as disgruntled. A senior official, Emil Bove, told a Senate panel that he never advised defying courts. Career lawyers were also uncomfortable defending Trump's executive orders targeting law firms, according to two former Justice Department lawyers and a third person familiar with the matter. A longtime ally of Bondi who defended all four law firm cases argued they were a lawful exercise of presidential power. Judges ultimately struck down all four as violating the Constitution. The Trump administration has indicated it will appeal at least one case.
Daily Mail
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Starmer's migrant plan set to be sunk before it's launched: Campaigners threaten to scupper return deal with France - as Brussels assesses whether scheme complies with EU law
Campaigners last night threatened to scupper Keir Starmer 's migrant return deal with France. Only a day after unveiling the scheme alongside Emmanuel Macron, the Prime Minister was facing objections from Europe and charities that helped ground the Tories ' Rwanda plan. The new scheme was condemned by campaigners, who said they would support court cases brought by small-boat arrivals chosen to be sent back to France. A border union boss said the legal challenges could take a year. Brussels ominously warned that it was assessing whether the scheme complied with the 'spirit and the letter of the law', while governments including Italy were said to be harbouring 'huge doubts' about its legality. It came as Home Secretary Yvette Cooper refused to say how many of the thousands arriving by dinghy will be removed under the pilot scheme, amid fears it could be even fewer than the 50 a week suggested by French officials this week. Migrants waiting in Calais camps yesterday laughed off any suggestions the deal was a deterrent, and were already seemingly aware of how to defy attempts to send them back. Another 573 people made it across the Channel in ten boats on Thursday, the day the Anglo-French deal was announced, taking the record tally for the year so far to 21,690. Last night, Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp told the Mail: 'This pathetic arrangement may be sunk by legal challenges from activist lawyers and irresponsible charities who want to facilitate illegal immigration into the UK. The new scheme was condemned by campaigners, who said they would support court cases brought by small-boat arrivals chosen to be sent back to France 'With illegal immigration across the Channel so far this year hitting record levels, Keir Starmer must now be bitterly regretting his foolish decision to cancel the Rwanda deterrent scheme before it even started. 'After two years of legal challenges and legislation, the scheme was ready to go, but Starmer cancelled it just days before the first plane was due to take off last July. 'This would have enabled 100 per cent of the illegal immigrants to be immediately removed without judicial interference. 'The boats would soon have stopped. But Starmer is too weak and too mentally enslaved by his human rights lawyer friends to do what is needed to protect our country's borders.' Downing Street insisted the controversial 'one in, one out' agreement was legally sound and that Brussels supported it. But fearing that returned migrants could head to Italy, the country's interior minister told Sky News: 'We know the EU Commission is still evaluating the agreement, and EU countries, including us, have huge doubts about security and legal aspects of the deal.' A spokesman for the commission said: 'On the specific envisaged co-operation between France and the United Kingdom, the commission will assess the concrete modalities of this co-operation. 'And, of course, we continue to work with France and the UK, as well as other EU member states, to support solutions that are compatible with the spirit and the letter of EU law.' Ms Cooper said the new arrangement would 'fundamentally undermine' the people-smuggling gangs fuelling the crisis, adding that the Government had done 'a lot of work to make sure that the system is robust to legal challenges'. A No 10 spokesman said: 'France is a safe country – that's an important point. 'A lot of work has been carried out already to make sure this new scheme is robust to legal challenge and we are confident this scheme complies with both domestic and international law.' But Steve Peers, professor of law at Royal Holloway University, said the deal could be opposed by the European Commission – which could mean a case being brought against France in the EU's top court. He said it could also be challenged by individuals in the UK. One possible avenue would be for a returnee to question why they have been singled out given that only a fraction of those arriving will be returned. 'I can imagine someone is going to try it,' Professor Peers told the Mail. A charity which helped block the Tories' Rwanda scheme warned Labour it would do the same with the new French deal. A Care4Calais spokesman said: 'Care4Calais initiated legal challenges against the last Government's Rwanda policy and their attempts to introduce 'pushbacks' in the Channel – and we won. 'We will consider all options open to us to oppose any plans that will put more lives at risk and involve governments trading humans.' Fizza Qureshi, chief executive of the Migrants' Rights Network, said the group 'stands against this deal in its entirety' and 'looks forward to supporting those at risk of deportation in challenging removal in the courts'. Lucy Moreton, of the Immigration Services Union that represents Border Force officers, said delays were likely when selecting those to be returned. 'The issue is going to be around how you identify that individual and any legal challenge that flows from that. The legal challenge that arises from it could take a year,' she told the BBC. One Home Office insider told the Mail: 'One of the things that is most likely to scupper this is the modern slavery laws here. These are really likely to screw them up. 'The threshold for making a modern slavery claim is absurdly low – thanks to Theresa May, who brought in these laws – and someone only has to have a story that sounds plausible to get their entire case put on hold. That means they can't be deported while it's being considered.' The Home Office received a record 19,122 modern slavery claims last year – up 13 per cent on 2023 – and cases are taking an average of more than two years to reach a conclusion.
