Tag: Appeals

  • Appeals Court Reverses Order to Release Khalil

    Appeals Court Reverses Order to Release Khalil

    Protesters gathered in Houston in June to oppose President Donald Trump’s immigration policies.

    Reginald Mathalone/NurPhoto via Getty Images

    An appeals court has reversed the decision to release from custody Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University graduate and pro-Palestinian activist who was detained by immigration officials for several months last year, The Guardian and other outlets reported Thursday.

    The court dismissed the lawsuit challenging his arrest in a 2-to-1 ruling, on the grounds that the lower court that ordered his release did not have the jurisdiction to do so. Circuit judges Thomas Hardiman, a George W. Bush appointee, and Stephanos Bibas, a Trump appointee, argued that the petition for his release should have been handled in his eventual immigration hearing.

    “The scheme Congress enacted governing immigration proceedings provides Khalil a meaningful forum in which to raise his claims later on—in a petition for review of a final order of removal,” they wrote.

    In a dissenting opinion, however, Judge Arianna J. Freeman, a Biden appointee, argued that it was appropriate for Khalil to seek faster relief in federal court, as his detainment was causing “irreparable injury.”

    “Today’s ruling is deeply disappointing, but it does not break our resolve. The door may have been opened for potential re-detainment down the line, but it has not closed our commitment to Palestine and to justice and accountability,” Khalil said in a statement. ”I will continue to fight, through every legal avenue and with every ounce of determination, until my rights, and the rights of others like me, are fully protected.”

    Source link

  • Your Guide to the Financial Aid Appeals Process

    Your Guide to the Financial Aid Appeals Process

    As the leaves begin to turn across Central Ohio and your students head back to campus in the fall each year, we often focus on the excitement of the new semester — the football games, the homecoming dance, and the bright futures ahead. But as financial planners, we also know that life can change in an instant.  

    A few years ago, I witnessed a tragedy that hit close to home. A local family was suddenly upended when a father — the sole breadwinner of the household — passed away unexpectedly during his son’s sophomore year of college.

    The family was left reeling, navigating a dual crisis: the emotional weight of their loss and the financial reality of how to keep their son in school.

    The Silent Hero: A Proactive FAFSA filing

    While the family’s previous income level had originally disqualified them from receiving need-based aid, they had made one critical, proactive decision: they filed the FAFSA earlier that year.

    Because that document was already on file, the university didn’t have to start from scratch. They had a baseline — a “before” and “after” snapshot of the family’s reality. This allowed the school to move swiftly, recalculating the student’s eligibility in real-time.

    The “Angel” in the Financial Aid Office – A Lifeline in Record Time

    When the tragedy struck, a compassionate financial aid administrator stepped in. Because the FAFSA was already on file, the university had an immediate baseline. They collected additional information, of course, but they didn’t have to wait for new tax returns or start from scratch.

    Within just a few weeks, the university awarded the student an additional $8,000 per semester. That grant allowed the son to stay in school, providing a sense of stability when everything else felt like it was falling apart. It was the difference between the student dropping out or taking on a mountain of debt.   

    What is a “Special Circumstance Appeal”?

    In the world of higher education, the story above is a perfect example of what is known as a Special Circumstance Appeal (sometimes called “Professional Judgment”).

    Many families believe that once a financial aid package is set, it’s written in stone. In reality, financial aid offices have the authority to adjust your aid if your current financial reality no longer matches the “prior-prior” tax year data used on the FAFSA.

    New Federal Requirements: The Law is on Your Side

    Under the FAFSA Simplification Act (fully implemented for the 2024-2025 and 2025-2026 cycles), the federal government now mandates that every college have a process for “Professional Judgment.”

    Colleges are no longer allowed to have a “no-appeal” policy. They are required by law to:

    1. Publicly disclose that students can request an adjustment for special circumstances.
    2. Review every request on a case-by-case basis.
    3. Provide a clear process for families to submit their documentation.

    As a reminder, ALWAYS file the FAFSA. Even if you think you make “too much” for aid, filing creates a financial “snapshot” that serves as an insurance policy of sorts if your circumstances change mid-year. And also, keep your records organized. Having easy access to tax returns and financial aid forms allows you (or your advocate) to act swiftly during a crisis.

    How the Process Works

    If your family experiences a significant financial shift, you don’t need to “wait until next year.” As the story above shows, you should reach out to the college’s financial aid office to request a review as soon as possible. You will typically be asked to:

    • Write an Appeal Letter: Factual and concise, explaining the change in circumstances. Most schools have a form that you will be required to fill out, or a section of the school’s student portal.  
    • Provide Documentation: Such as termination letters, medical bills, or death certificates.
    • Complete a Verification: The school will verify your current income to determine a new, more accurate “Student Aid Index.”

    What Qualifies? (It’s more than you might think)

    While the loss of a parent is a clear catalyst for an appeal, schools can also reconsider your aid for several other reasons:

    • Job Loss or Significant Income Reduction: A layoff, a forced career change, or even a major reduction in overtime pay.
    • Unreimbursed Medical Expenses: High out-of-pocket costs (usually exceeding 7.5–11% of your income) that weren’t covered by insurance.
    • Divorce or Separation: When a household splits after the FAFSA has already been filed.
    • Natural Disasters: Costs associated with repairing a home or business after a flood, fire, or storm.
    • One-Time Income Spikes: If a one-time IRA distribution or inheritance artificially inflated your income on your tax return, you can ask for it to be excluded.

    Our Role as Your Partners

    If there is one thing we know for sure, it is that life is going to throw us curveballs. No one can control the future, but as financial planners, we help prepare for the worst and hope for the best. At Capstone, we don’t just manage portfolios and push paper; we help you navigate these complex life transitions.

    If your family is facing a change in circumstances, book a Complimentary College Consultation with me. I can help you gather the necessary documentation and coordinate with financial aid offices to ensure your student’s education stays on track.

    Source link

  • Trump administration appeals ruling in Harvard University case

    Trump administration appeals ruling in Harvard University case

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • The Trump administration on Thursday filed to appeal the ruling against the federal government’s roughly $2.2 billion freeze of Harvard University’s research funding.
    • In September, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs struck down the freeze orders, ruling the government acted unlawfully and violated the university’s First Amendment rights when targeting Harvard’s funding and attempting to force myriad policy changes at the university. 
    • Burroughs entered a final judgment in October concluding the Trump administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act and its actions were “arbitrary and capricious.” The administration’s appeal fulfills its promise in September to contest the ruling.

    Dive Insight:

    In Burroughs’ final ruling on Oct. 20, she permanently blocked the Trump administration from enforcing the funding freeze orders. She also barred the government from issuing new grant terminations or withholding “funding to Harvard in retaliation for the exercise of First Amendment rights,” or for alleged discrimination without following the proper steps under civil rights law.

    The administration filed its appeal of the ruling with the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. 

    White House spokesperson Liz Huston said in a statement Friday that Harvard “failed to protect its students, allowing harassment and discrimination to run rampant on its campus.” She added that the university “is not entitled to taxpayer funding, and we are confident the university will be held fully accountable for their failures.”

    Meanwhile, a Harvard spokesperson said in an emailed statement Friday that the university remains “confident in our legal position.”

    “The federal district court ruled in Harvard’s favor in September, reinstating critical research funding that advances science and life-saving medical breakthroughs, strengthens national security, and enhances our nation’s competitiveness and economic priorities,” the spokesperson said. 

    The appeal follows a monthslong legal battle between Harvard and the Trump administration. 

    At the end of March, President Donald Trump’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism announced it would review some $9 billion of Harvard’s grants and contracts. U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon at the time claimed the university failed “to protect students on campus from anti-Semitic discrimination” in the wake of 2024’s tumultuous season of pro-Palestinian protests. 

    Days later, the Trump administration sent Harvard a wide-ranging, unprecedented set of demands backed by threats to the university’s federal funding. Those demands included changing “biased” departments, governance reforms, and the elimination of all of Harvard’s diversity, equity and inclusion programs. 

    The administration followed up with even stricter demands that called for a viewpoint “audit” of Harvard’s students and faculty, and for the institution to reduce the power of faculty and administrators involved in activism. After Harvard President Alan Garber rebuked the Trump administration for overstepping its authority, the government froze over $2 billion in funding to the university. 

    The government has since waged a multi-agency financial and bureaucratic war against Harvard, threatening everything from its tax-exempt status to its ability to enroll international students to its control of its patents. 

    In Burroughs’ initial ruling in September, the judge questioned the Trump administration’s rationale in issuing grant termination letters. The federal government said it was trying to end institutionalized antisemitism at Harvard, but Burroughs concluded that a connection was “wholly lacking” between its actions and its official motivations.

    The evidence didn’t “reflect that fighting antisemitism was Defendants’ true aim in acting against Harvard,” Burroughs wrote in her ruling. “Even if it were, combatting antisemitism cannot be accomplished on the back of the First Amendment.”

    Since then, the government has reinstated most of the university’s frozen funding.

    Over the months of litigation, several media reports have cited anonymous sources predicting an ever-nearing settlement between Harvard and the Trump administration. Trump himself said as much in September. 

    So far, a deal hasn’t materialized.

    Source link

  • OCR Can Move Forward With RIFs, Appeals Court Says

    OCR Can Move Forward With RIFs, Appeals Court Says

    The decision comes months after the Supreme Court ruled in a parallel case that the Education Department could move forward with firing nearly half its employees.

    Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

    After months of uncertainty, a federal appeals court ruled Monday that the Education Department can move forward with firing half of the 550 employees at its Office for Civil Rights. 

    In March, the department enacted a reduction-in-force plan to eliminate nearly half of its employees, including 276 at OCR, as part of wider effort to dismantle the 45-year-old agency. Those RIFs prompted multiple lawsuits against the department, including New York v. McMahon and the Victim Rights Law Center v. Department of Education; while the former challenged RIFs across the entire department, the latter case was restricted to the RIFs within OCR. 

    Federal district judges issued injunctions in both cases during the litigation process. Then, in July, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the McMahon case that the department could proceed with firing half its staff. Despite that ruling, a federal judge in Massachusetts refused to vacate the injunction preventing the department from firing the staff at OCR, arguing that the cases—and therefore their related rulings—remained separate. 

    The government appealed that decision and requested a stay of the RIF injunction. On Monday the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit granted that request, giving OCR the green light to fire half its staff.   

    “We note the district court’s careful analysis concluding that the Department’s decision to reduce by half the staff of OCR, a statutorily-created office, imperils Congress’s mandate that OCR ‘enforce federal civil rights laws that ban discrimination based on race, sex, and disability in the public education system,’” the court’s opinion read. “In this stay posture and at this preliminary stage of the litigation, however, we cannot conclude that this case differs enough from McMahon to reach a contrary result to the Supreme Court’s order staying the injunction in McMahon.”

    Source link

  • Trump administration appeals pause on Education Department cuts to SCOTUS

    Trump administration appeals pause on Education Department cuts to SCOTUS

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    UPDATE: June 6, 2025: The U.S. Department of Justice asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday for an immediate pause on a court order that the U.S. Department of Education reinstate nearly 1,400 employees fired during a mass workforce reduction in March. The Justice Department’s appeal calls the lower court’s order an “unlawful remedy” and says the injunction “causes irreparable harm to the Executive Branch.”

    Dive Brief:

    • A federal appeals court on Wednesday rejected the Trump administration’s motion for a stay in a lawsuit challenging the dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education, effectively halting — at least temporarily — efforts to reduce the agency’s workforce and transfer some education responsibilities to other federal departments.
    • The administration had argued it could still carry out the statutory requirements of the Education Department, even with a workforce cut in half. But the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, saying it saw “no basis” that a lower court erred in concluding that task seemed “impossible.”
    • The ruling was the latest in a series of legal developments concerning Trump administration reforms at the Education Department. Trump, U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon and many Republican lawmakers are attempting to eliminate what they say is federal overreach and inefficiencies in education.

       

    Dive Insight:

    The lawsuit at the center of the ruling was filed in March by 20 Democratic-leaning states and the District of Columbia. They sued the Education Department, Trump and McMahon two days after the agency announced mass workforce reductions. That challenge was combined with a similar lawsuit from public school districts in Massachusetts and education labor unions. 

    A federal district judge last month issued a preliminary injunction halting the workforce reductions temporarily. That ruling also prohibited the Education Department from transferring management of the federal student loans portfolio and special education management and oversight to other federal agencies. 

    In Wednesday’s decision denying a motion for a stay, the three-judge panel said the Education Department has not shown “that the public’s interest lies in permitting a major federal department to be unlawfully disabled from performing its statutorily assigned functions.” 

    The Trump administration also argued that it is being forced to return staff whose services are no longer needed. The 1st Circuit, however, said its reading of the preliminary injunction shows no specific number or deadline for returning employees who were part of the reduction in force.

    “We do not see how complying with those aspects of the injunction imposes a burden on the government, no less one that is ‘extraordinary,’” the court said.

    Source link

  • Appeals Court Stays Litigation on Overtime Rule – CUPA-HR

    Appeals Court Stays Litigation on Overtime Rule – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | May 6, 2025

    On April 29, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay on the litigation challenging the Biden administration’s overtime rule that will last for 120 days. The order halts further proceedings in the appeals court while the Trump administration’s Department of Labor (DOL) reconsiders the Biden administration’s rule, and it directs DOL to file additional status reports every 60 days.

    In February, the Trump administration’s DOL filed an appeal on a district court’s ruling in Flint Avenue, LLC v. DOL that vacated the Biden administration’s overtime rule. The Trump appeal was the second appeal filed for cases involving the Biden overtime rule. The move to appeal was largely viewed as an attempt for the Trump administration to put a placeholder on court proceedings while Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer settled into her new role and figured out next steps for the overtime regulations.

    The ruling from the appeals court followed a request from Trump’s DOL to hold the case in abeyance while the agency reconsidered the rule. Further updates from the Trump administration regarding the overtime regulations are likely to follow.

    CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for updates related to the overtime regulations.



    Source link

  • Federal Appeals Court Lifts Bar on DEI Executive Orders

    Federal Appeals Court Lifts Bar on DEI Executive Orders

    by CUPA-HR | March 17, 2025

    On March 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit issued a decision allowing the Trump administration to enforce Executive Orders 14151 and 14173, both of which target “illegal … DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities” in the public and private sectors and in federal contracts. The 4th Circuit’s decision effectively overrules a February 21 preliminary injunction issued in a U.S. District Court in Maryland that had blocked the administration from enforcing some provisions in the orders.

    As a reminder, orders 14151 and 14173 revoke prior executive orders, including Executive Order 11246, which required federal contractors to maintain affirmative action plans. Among other things, orders 14151 and 14173 also mandate that:

    • federal agencies include provisions in federal contracts requiring that contractors agree to comply with nondiscrimination laws and certify they do not operate any DEI programs that violate discrimination laws;
    • the Office of Management and Budget terminate all “‘diversity,’ ‘equity,’ ‘equitable decision-making,’ ‘equitable deployment of financial and technical assistance,’ ‘advancing equity,’ and like mandates, requirements, programs, or activities, as appropriate;” and
    • each agency “identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations of publicly traded corporations, large non-profit corporations or associations, foundations with assets of 500 million dollars or more, State and local bar and medical associations, and institutions of higher education with endowments over 1 billion dollars.”

    CUPA-HR will continue to share further developments regarding the lawsuits challenging orders 14151 and 14173.

     



    Source link

  • UPDATE: Another federal appeals court backs academic free speech for public employees

    UPDATE: Another federal appeals court backs academic free speech for public employees

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit just sided with free speech, joining five of its sister circuits in holding the First Amendment protects academic research, writing, and teaching at public colleges and universities. This carves out an important exception to the Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos holding that public employees’ speech pursuant to their official duties is not protected.

    This is a big deal. Just ask Jason Kilborn, a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago suspended in late 2021 for using a redacted racial slur “n___” on a final exam question about employment discrimination. He also used the redacted term “b___” in the same question.

    UIC suspended Kilborn and launched an investigation into his (non-)use of the terms. That’s when FIRE stepped in — defending Kilborn, writing to UIC administrators, and securing him a lawyer through our Faculty Legal Defense Fund. With help from that lawyer, UIC briefly reached a resolution with Kilborn but it later reneged on that agreement and forced him to write reflection papers and participate in months-long training sessions before he could return to teaching.

    Kilborn sued, alleging administrators violated his constitutional right to academic freedom — and while the district court had dismissed the case, on Wednesday, the Chicago-based Seventh Circuit agreed the First Amendment protected Kilborn’s speech. That court rejected UIC’s “invitation to extend Garcetti to speech involving university teaching and scholarship when the Supreme Court was unwilling to do so,” and sent the case back to the district court. 

    With the rejection of that application of Garcetti, the district court will analyze this case using the balancing test from Pickering v. Board of Education, which directs courts to weigh “the interests of the [employee] in commenting upon matters of public concern” against “the interest of the state, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” 

    This is now the sixth federal appeals court to establish this exception to Garcetti, extending academic freedom protections to public university faculty throughout Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. FIRE is currently awaiting a decision from the Atlanta-based Eleventh Circuit, where we’ve asked that court to do the same with respect to the Garcetti exception. Stay tuned for more as we continue to press and follow this issue closely. 

    Source link

  • U.S. Appeals Court Overturns $15 Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors

    U.S. Appeals Court Overturns $15 Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors

    by CUPA-HR | November 12, 2024

    On November 5, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower district court’s decision to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the Biden administration’s executive order and the Department of Labor (DOL)’s final rule to increase the minimum wage for federal contractors. The ruling orders the legal challenge to proceed, which could ultimately strike down the executive order and final rule.

    In April 2021, the Biden administration published executive order 14026, which directed DOL to issue regulations to increase the minimum wage for federal contractors to $15 per hour beginning on January 30, 2022. Subsequently, in November 2021, DOL issued its final rule to implement the executive order, setting the minimum wage for federal contractors to $15 per hour on January 30, 2022, and requiring the secretary of Labor to annually review and determine the minimum wage amount beginning in January 2023.

    The executive order and final rule were challenged by five states: Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Nebraska and South Carolina. In their suit, the states claimed that the Biden administration violated the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (FPASA) and exceeded its authority granted under the law by imposing a wage mandate through an executive order. They also argued that DOL violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which governs how federal agencies proceed through the notice-and-comment rulemaking process, when implementing the final rule. The lawsuit was originally dismissed by a federal judge in the U.S. District Court of Arizona, leading the states to appeal to the 9th Circuit.

    In the 9th Circuit’s ruling, two of the three judges on the panel sided with the states’ arguments, reversing the dismissal of the case from the lower district court. The majority opinion held that the minimum wage mandate exceeded the president’s authority under FPASA and that DOL’s final rule was subject to arbitrary-or-capricious review under the APA. As such, the circuit court sends the case back to the district court, where the federal judge will proceed with the case and issue a further ruling to uphold or strike down the executive order and final rule. For now, the order and final rule are still in place, but the future of both is uncertain. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates related to this lawsuit and further laws and regulations impacting federal contractors.

     

     



    Source link

  • Appeals Court Upholds DOL’s Authority to Use Minimum Salary Threshold to Determine Overtime Exemptions

    Appeals Court Upholds DOL’s Authority to Use Minimum Salary Threshold to Determine Overtime Exemptions

    by CUPA-HR | September 12, 2024

    On September 11, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in Mayfield v. U.S. Department of Labor that upholds DOL’s authority to implement a minimum salary threshold to determine exempt status under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime pay requirements. While the ruling does not answer how other lawsuits challenging the Biden administration’s rule will be decided, the ruling is significant and could help other federal judges determine whether or not to strike down the Biden administration’s increased minimum salary thresholds.

    Background

    The case’s plaintiff, Robert Mayfield, filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration’s overtime rule in August 2022. In his lawsuit, he argued that the FLSA language on overtime exemptions only mentions a worker’s job-related duties and that implementing a salary threshold to determine exempt status exceeds DOL’s statutory authority. The Western District Court of Texas, a lower court where the lawsuit was originally filed, sided with DOL, stating that the agency has the statutory authority to implement the FLSA overtime minimum salary threshold. Mayfield appealed the decision to the 5th Circuit soon after.

    The Decision

    In its decision that sides with the Department of Labor, the 5th Circuit Court held that DOL may use a minimum salary requirement as part of its test for determining whether or not an employee qualifies as an executive, administrative and professional (EAP) employee exempt from the FLSA overtime pay requirements. Notably, the 5th Circuit Court argued that DOL does have statutory authority under the FLSA to use a salary threshold to “define and delimit the terms of exemption.”

    Though the decision allows for DOL to use a minimum salary threshold, the 5th Circuit Court did state that there is a limit to the power granted to DOL to do so. Specifically, the decision states that DOL may only use the minimum salary requirement to the extent that the salary threshold established in the regulations is a reasonable proxy for who is and who is not an EAP employee. They argued that DOL’s power to rely on proxy is not “unbounded” and that the agency “cannot enact rules that replace or swallow the meaning” of the FLSA’s terms that they seek to define.

    Looking Ahead

    Outside of the Mayfield case, there are three pending lawsuits in the Eastern District Court of Texas to challenge the Biden administration’s overtime final rule. That rule implements a two-phase approach to increasing the minimum salary threshold under the FLSA. The first increase took effect on July 1, increasing the minimum salary threshold from the current level of $684 per week ($35,568 per year) to $844 per week ($43,888 per year), and the second increase is set to take effect on January 1, 2025, increasing the minimum salary threshold again to $1,128 per week ($58,656 per year).

    The decision from the 5th Circuit does not have an immediate impact on the lawsuits challenging the Biden administration’s overtime rule, nor does it provide a definitive answer on how lower courts decide in those legal challenges. As such, the Biden administration’s July 1 salary threshold continues to be in effect,* and the second increase to the salary threshold is still set to take effect on January 1, 2025. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of additional updates related to the FLSA overtime pay regulations.

    *A preliminary injunction to block DOL from enforcing the overtime final rule was placed for public employees in the state of Texas. Private institutions in Texas and all other institutions outside of Texas need to be in compliance with the July 1 salary threshold.



    Source link