Tag: blocks

  • Court temporarily blocks overnight ban on expression at University of Texas System

    Court temporarily blocks overnight ban on expression at University of Texas System

    Dive Brief:

    • A federal judge on Tuesday temporarily blocked University of Texas System officials from enforcing a state law that bans free speech and expression on public campuses between the hours of 10 p.m. and 8 a.m.
    • The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression sued leaders of the UT system in September on behalf of student groups who argued the law violated their First Amendment rights.
    • U.S. District Judge David Alan Ezra, a Reagan appointee, found that plaintiffs raised “significant First Amendment issues” with the law and its application, and he granted a preliminary injunction on enforcement while the case plays out.

    Dive Insight:

    Texas passed SB 2972, earlier this year in the wake of 2024’s wave of pro-Palestinian protests on U.S. campuses.

    “In April 2024, universities across the nation saw massive disruption on their campus,” state Sen. Brandon Creighton, the primary author of the bill, wrote in a statement of intent. “Protesters erected encampments in common areas, intimidated other students through the use of bullhorns and speakers, and lowered American flags with the intent of raising the flag of another nation.”

    In late September, Creighton, was named chancellor and CEO of the Texas Tech University System. 

    Along with specifically prohibiting First Amendment-protected activity overnight, the law also bars the campus community from inviting speakers to campus, using devices to amplify speech and playing drums or other percussive instruments during the last two weeks of any term. 

    In its complaint, FIRE called the law “blatantly unconstitutional.” 

    “The First Amendment doesn’t set when the sun goes down,” FIRE senior supervising attorney JT Morris said in a September statement. “University students have expressive freedom whether it’s midnight or midday, and Texas can’t just legislate those constitutional protections out of existence.”

    Ezra agreed in his ruling. 

    “The First Amendment does not have a bedtime of 10:00 p.m.,” the judge wrote. “The burden is on the government to prove that its actions are narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest. It has not done so.”

    In his ruling, Ezra wrote that the law’s free speech restrictions were not content-neutral and so must survive a strict legal test for the government to show that the law is the least restrictive possible to achieve a “compelling” goal. 

    The judge pointed to public posts by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and the bill’s statement of intent, both decrying the pro-Palestinian protests. Abbott described the protests as antisemitic and called for the arrest and expulsion of protestors.

    “The statute is content-based both on its face and by looking to the purpose and justification for the law,” Ezra wrote. 

    Ezra also highlighted that the statute carved out an exception for commercial speech in his ruling. 

    “Defendants betray the stated goal of preventing disruption and ensuring community safety by failing to expand the Bans to commercial speech,” he wrote. “Students can engage in commercial speech that would otherwise violate the Bans simply because it is not ‘expressive activities,’ no matter how disruptive.”

    In response to the law, the University of Texas at Austin adopted a more limited version of the policy that only banned overnight expressive activities in its common outdoor area that generate sound to be heard from a university residence. 

    However, Ezra concluded the pared-down policy wasn’t enough to protect students’ constitutional speech rights, as UT-Austin could change it or enforce it subjectively. 

    “The threat of prosecution arises not only from UT’s adopted policy but also from the legislative statute,” the judge wrote. “As adopted, UT Austin is not currently in compliance with the statute, and at any point could change or be instructed to change its policies to comply with the law.”

    FIRE cheered the injunction on Tuesday. 

    “We’re thankful that the court stepped in and halted a speech ban that inevitably would’ve been weaponized to censor speech that administrators disagreed with,” FIRE Senior Attorney Adam Steinbaugh said in a statement. 

    In its lawsuit, the free speech group has asked the judge to permanently block the law’s enforcement.

    Source link

  • Federal Court Blocks Trump Administration’s $2.2 Billion Harvard Funding Freeze

    Federal Court Blocks Trump Administration’s $2.2 Billion Harvard Funding Freeze

    A federal judge delivered a sweeping victory for academic freedom Wednesday, ruling that the Trump administration’s freeze of $2.2 billion in federal grant funds to Harvard University was illegal and unconstitutional.

    U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs determined that the administration imposed the funding freeze in retaliation for Harvard’s refusal to comply with demands that would have violated First Amendment protections, including ending diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and screening international students for ideological biases.

    The ruling vacates all freezing orders affecting Harvard and bars Trump administration officials from enforcing those orders going forward.

    The administration froze Harvard’s federal grants on April 14, just hours after the university rejected a list of ten demands. While only one demand related to antisemitism concerns, six others targeted ideological and pedagogical issues, including restrictions on who could lead, teach, and be admitted to the university, as well as what could be taught.

    Judge Burroughs noted that the “swift termination” of funding occurred before the administration had learned anything substantive about antisemitism on campus or Harvard’s response efforts, suggesting the antisemitism concerns were “at best arbitrary and, at worst, pretextual.”

    The funding freeze halted work on critical research projects spanning multiple fields, including studies on tuberculosis, NASA astronauts’ radiation exposure, Lou Gehrig’s disease, and a predictive model to help Veterans Administration emergency room physicians assess suicidal veterans. Burroughs ruled that none of these affected projects had any connection to antisemitism.

    The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) celebrated the ruling as a landmark victory for higher education.

    “This is a huge win for all of American higher education, for science, and for free and critical thought in this country,” said Dr. Todd Wolfson, National AAUP President. “Time and again, Trump has tried to restrict speech and cripple lifesaving university research. As today’s victory shows, Trump’s war on higher education is unconstitutional.”

    Veena Dubal, National AAUP General Counsel, characterized the administration’s actions as “cynical and lawless, leveraging claims of discrimination to bludgeon critical research and debate.”

    The Harvard AAUP chapter also praised the outcome. “This historic ruling underscores the importance of free inquiry, truth, and the rule of law in a democratic society,” said Kirsten Weld, AAUP-Harvard Faculty Chapter President.

    Harvard President Dr. Alan Garber had previously stated that “no government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”

    The Education Department pushed back against the ruling through spokesperson Madi Biedermann, who criticized Burroughs as “the same Obama-appointed judge that ruled in favor of Harvard’s illegal race-based admissions practices” before the Supreme Court ultimately overturned those practices.

    “Cleaning up our nation’s universities will be a long road, but worth it,” Biedermann said, suggesting the administration may continue its broader efforts to reshape higher education policies.

    The ruling establishes important precedent for protecting academic freedom and research independence from political interference. Legal experts note that the decision reinforces constitutional limits on government retaliation against educational institutions for their speech, curriculum choices, and admissions policies.

    AAUP leaders said that the victory demonstrates the importance of collective action in defending academic freedom, with faculty and administrators standing together against what they characterize as authoritarian overreach into university governance and research priorities.

    Source link

  • Court Temporarily Blocks Ban on Bargaining by Defense Department Teachers Unions – The 74

    Court Temporarily Blocks Ban on Bargaining by Defense Department Teachers Unions – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    A district court judge has temporarily blocked a Trump administration ban on collective bargaining by two teachers unions in Department of Defense schools.

    Judge Paul Friedman issued a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit filed this spring by the Federal Education Association and Antilles Consolidated Education Association, which represent more than 5,500 teachers, librarians and counselors in the 161 schools under the Department of Defense Education Activity. The agency educates 67,000 children on military bases worldwide.

    The union sued the Trump administration over a March executive order that stripped collective bargaining rights from two-thirds of federal service workers. The order impacted the Departments of Justice, Defense, Veteran Affairs, Treasury, and Health and Human Services, as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Environmental Protection Agency.

    The Federal Education Association has been negotiating teachers contracts with the Department of Defense since 1970, while the Antilles Consolidated Education Association has bargained on behalf of Puerto Rico educators since 1976, according to the lawsuit. The current collective bargaining agreements for both unions were approved in 2023 and are set to expire in summer 2028.

    But since the order was issued, the lawsuit says, the Department of Defense Education Activity has discontinued negotiations, stopped participation in grievance proceedings and prohibited union representation during educator disciplinary meetings. Members are also no longer allowed to conduct union work during the school day. Requests from educators to access a union sick leave bank with 13,000 donated hours have also been ignored, according to the suit.

    “These actions, taken together, essentially terminate the respective collective bargaining agreements and thus cause irreparable harm,” Friedman said in his decision.

    A 1978 federal statute allows collective bargaining in the civil service sector. The suit argued that while presidents have the authority to exclude an agency if its primary function involves intelligence, investigation or national security work, “Many, if not most, of the agencies and agency subdivisions swept up in the executive order’s dragnet do little to no national security work, much less do they have a primary function [of] intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative [work].”

    The agency declined to comment on ongoing legal proceedings. In a reply to the unions’ lawsuit, Trump administration attorneys said the executive order was within the law and that reversing it would be costly.

    “Rather than maintaining the status quo, it would force [the Department of Defense] to undo actions it has already taken to implement the executive order, causing significant disruption and resource expenditures,” the lawyers wrote.

    In April, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth authorized a few exemptions for agencies related to the Air Force and Army, but not the teachers unions — despite a push from 45 lawmakers to exclude the school system.

    “Ensuring that DoDEA educators and personnel retain collective bargaining protections will ensure that DoDEA can continue to recruit and retain the best staff in support of its mission,” the congressional members wrote in a letter. “Collective bargaining safeguards the public interest, and its history in DoDEA has demonstrated better outcomes for mission readiness, and stronger connections between military-connected families and those who serve them.”

    An appeal from the Trump administration is pending. A similar lawsuit from six unions, including the American Federation of Government Employees, resulted in an injunction, but a federal appeals court reversed it in August.


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link

  • VICTORY! 5th Circuit blocks West Texas A&M’s unconstitutional drag ban

    VICTORY! 5th Circuit blocks West Texas A&M’s unconstitutional drag ban

    NEW ORLEANS, Aug. 18, 2025 — In a victory for student expression on campus, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit today overruled a lower court to halt an unconstitutional ban on student drag performances at West Texas A&M University.

    In March 2023, West Texas A&M President Walter Wendler announced that he was unilaterally canceling a planned campus drag show hosted by LGBTQ+ organization Spectrum WT to raise money for suicide prevention. In a campus-wide email, Wendler said that he was canceling the event because he believes it offends and demeans women.

    As a public official at a state university, the First Amendment bars Wendler from censoring a performance based on nothing more than his personal disapproval. But astonishingly, Wendler admitted he was canceling the show even though “the law of the land appears to require” him to allow it.

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression quickly jumped into action, filing a lawsuit against Wendler and West Texas A&M on behalf of Spectrum WT, its president Bear Bright, and vice president Marcus Stovall. FIRE’s lawsuit seeks to halt Wendler’s unlawful censorship and obtain damages for violating the students’ clearly established First Amendment rights.

    In September 2023, the district court denied FIRE’s motion for a preliminary injunction. While the case made its way through the courts, Wendler canceled a second drag show planned by Spectrum WT in March 2024.

    Today’s ruling from the Fifth Circuit overturns the district court’s ruling and places a temporary hold on Wendler’s enforcement of his illegal directive, allowing Spectrum WT and any other student organization to put on drag shows while litigation continues.

    The majority opinion from Judge Leslie H. Southwick found a substantial likelihood that Spectrum WT’s First Amendment claims would prevail on the merits.

    “Because theatrical performances plainly involve expressive conduct within the protection of the First Amendment, and because we find the plaintiffs’ drag show is protected expression,” the Fifth Circuit held Wendler’s censorship failed to pass constitutional muster. 

    “FIRE is pleased that the Fifth Circuit has halted President Wendler’s unconstitutional censorship and restored the First Amendment at West Texas A&M,” said FIRE Supervising Senior Attorney JT Morris. “This is a victory not just for Spectrum WT, but for any public university students at risk of being silenced by campus censors.”

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.

    CONTACT:

    Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

    Source link

  • Senator Murray Blocks Trump Education Nominee as Funding Crisis Deepens

    Senator Murray Blocks Trump Education Nominee as Funding Crisis Deepens

    U.S. Senator Patty Murray U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) has blocked the fast-track consideration of Mary Christina Riley, President Trump’s nominee to serve as Assistant Secretary for Legislation and Congressional Affairs at the Department of Education, as the administration continues to withhold nearly $7 billion in funding for K-12 schools and adult education programs nationwide.

    The move by Murray, Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, forces Riley’s nomination to undergo full committee review rather than skipping directly to Senate floor consideration. The action comes just weeks before the new school year begins, with school districts across the country scrambling to address massive budget shortfalls created by the Trump administration’s funding freeze.

    “As schools nationwide scramble to figure out how many teachers they need to lay off and afterschool programs warn parents to make back up plans—all because President Trump is blocking over $6 billion in education funding he himself signed into law—there is no reason for any Department of Education nominee to skip committee consideration and get fast-tracked for confirmation,” Murray said in a statement.

    The senator’s parliamentary maneuver reflects growing Democratic frustration with the Trump administration’s decision to withhold funding that was previously approved by Congress. The administration notified states on July 1—the traditional deadline for fund distribution—that it was placing the money under review “given the change in Administrations.”

    The funding freeze affects six critical federal education programs that support teacher professional development, English language learning, after-school programs, and services for migrant children. The largest portion consists of $2.2 billion for Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants, which fund professional development and activities to improve teacher effectiveness.

    Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia have already filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over the frozen funds, with California Attorney General Rob Bonta calling the move one with “no rhyme or reason” that came “abruptly” just weeks before the school year begins.

    The consequences are being felt immediately across the education landscape. The Afterschool Alliance warned that without the funds, “we will quickly see more children and youth unsupervised and at risk, more academic failures, more hungry kids, more chronic absenteeism, higher dropout rates, more parents forced out of their jobs, and a less STEM-ready and successful workforce.”

    The Trump administration’s Office of Management and Budget, led by Russell Vought, has suggested the funding freeze is part of an investigation into whether money has been used for what it calls a “radical leftwing agenda,” including scholarships for undocumented students or teachings on LGBTQ topics.

    Murray rejected these justifications, arguing that the administration has provided no clear explanation for the delay and no timeline for when funding might be released. Even some Republican senators have criticized the move, with Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) telling Education Week she “strongly oppose[s] the administration’s decision to pause the delivery of education formula grant funding.”

    The funding freeze represents part of a broader Trump administration effort to reshape federal education policy. The administration’s proposed fiscal year 2026 budget would eliminate all six of the grant programs currently under review, as part of a 23 percent cut to domestic spending.

    Murray, a former teacher and longtime education advocate, has been a vocal critic of the administration’s education policies. She has previously blasted Trump’s plans to dismantle the Department of Education, calling the idea “terrible” and arguing that “Trump and Musk don’t know what it’s like to count on their local public school having the resources to get their kids the education they deserve.”

    The affected programs serve some of the nation’s most vulnerable student populations, including:

    • Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (Title II-A) for teacher professional development
    • 21st Century Community Learning Centers (Title IV-B) for after-school programs
    • Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants (Title IV-A) for STEM education and school mental health
    • English Language Acquisition (Title III-A) for English language learners
    • Migrant Education (Title I-C) for children of migrant workers
    • Adult Basic and Literacy Education State Grants for adult education programs.

     

    Source link

  • Department of Education Blocks Undocumented Students from Career and Technical Programs

    Department of Education Blocks Undocumented Students from Career and Technical Programs

    The U.S. Department of Education announced it will no longer allow federal funds to support career, technical, and adult education programs for undocumented students, rescinding a nearly three-decade-old policy that permitted such access.

    The department said it is rescinding a 1997 “Dear Colleague Letter” from the Clinton administration that allowed undocumented immigrants to receive federal aid for career, technical, and adult education programs. The interpretive rule, published in the Federal Register, clarifies that federal programs under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act and the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act are “federal public benefits” subject to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.

    Education Secretary Linda McMahon stated that “under President Trump’s leadership, hardworking American taxpayers will no longer foot the bill for illegal aliens to participate in our career, technical, or adult education programs or activities”.

    The policy change affects access to dual enrollment programs, postsecondary career and technical education, and adult education programs. The department said it will send letters to postsecondary schools and adult education programs clarifying that undocumented immigrants cannot receive federal aid and may take enforcement actions against schools that do not comply by August 9.

    Augustus Mays, vice president of partnerships and engagement at EdTrust, a Washington-based education equity advocacy organization, condemned the decision.

    “This move is part of a broader, deeply disturbing trend,” Mays said. “Across the country, we’re seeing migrant communities targeted with sweeping raids, amplified surveillance, and fear-based rhetoric designed to divide and dehumanize.”

    Mays argued the change “derails individual aspirations and undercuts workforce development at a time when our nation is facing labor shortages in critical fields like healthcare, education, and skilled trades”. He noted the decision compounds existing barriers, as undocumented students are already prohibited from accessing federal financial aid including Pell Grants and student loans.

    The department maintains that the Clinton-era interpretation “mischaracterized the law by creating artificial distinctions between federal benefit programs based upon the method of assistance,” a distinction the department says Congress did not make in the 1996 welfare reform law.

    The change comes as President Trump proclaimed February 2025 as Career and Technical Education Month, stating his administration will “invest in the next generation and expand access to high-quality career and technical education for all Americans”.

    Career and technical education programs served approximately 11 million students in 2019-20, with about $1.3 billion in federal funds supporting such programs through the Department of Education in fiscal year 2021.

    The interpretive rule represents the department’s current enforcement position, though officials indicated they do not currently plan enforcement actions against programs serving undocumented students before August 9.

    EdTrust called on policymakers, education leaders, and community advocates to oppose the change. 

    “We must fight for a country where every student, regardless of where they were born, has access to the promise of education and the dignity of opportunity,” Mays said.

    Source link

  • Universities Sue, Judge Blocks DOD’s Indirect Costs Cap

    Universities Sue, Judge Blocks DOD’s Indirect Costs Cap

    Johns Hopkins, Arizona State and Cornell Universities are among a coalition of 12 higher education institutions and three trade groups that filed a lawsuit against the Department of Defense on Monday over the agency’s plan to cap universities’ indirect research cost rates at 15 percent. 

    While DOD secretary Pete Hegseth said in a memo last month that the policy is aimed at “accountability” and rooting out “waste,” the lawsuit argues that slashing indirect costs rates “will stop critical research in its tracks, lead to layoffs and cutbacks at universities across the country, badly undermine scientific research at United States universities, and erode our nation’s enviable status as a global leader in scientific research and innovation.”

    On Tuesday, a federal judge in Boston issued a temporary restraining order, prohibiting the DOD from enacting the cap. A hearing in the case is set for July 2. 

    The litigation filed this week is the latest legal challenge universities and their advocates have mounted against the federal government’s attempts to cap the amount of money it gives universities for the indirect costs of conducting federally funded research. The National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy have all attempted to unilaterally enact similar caps, and federal judges have blocked those efforts for now. 

    For decades, universities have periodically negotiated with the federal government to calculate bespoke indirect cost reimbursement rates to pay for research costs that support multiple grant-funded projects, such as facilities maintenance, specialized equipment and administrative personnel. Universities factor those rates into their institutional budgets.

    For example, Johns Hopkins and the DOD currently have in place a negotiated indirect cost rate of 55 percent. In 2024 JHU received $32 million from the DOD to cover indirect costs, according to the lawsuit. If the DOD’s plan moves forward, however, the university would lose $22 million. 

    Source link

  • Judge blocks Trump’s international enrolment ban

    Judge blocks Trump’s international enrolment ban

    The temporary restraining order (TRO) was issued by federal judge Allison Burroughs on June 5, just one day after President Trump’s signing of a proclamation to suspend the issuing of US visas to international students entering Harvard for an initial six months.   

    During the Massachusetts hearing, Burroughs said Trump’s directive would cause “immediate and irreparable injury” to America’s oldest institution, temporarily blocking it “until there is opportunity to hear from all parties”. 

    The judge also extended a 23 May restraining order which prevents DHS’s attempt to strip Harvard of its ability to enrol international students, until June 20 or when a preliminary injunction is issued, with a hearing set for June 16. 

    The June 4 proclamation came in addition to, and aims to circumvent, DHS secretary Kristi Noem’s revocation of Harvard’s SEVP certification, which was also blocked by the courts.  

    Wednesday’s directive – which incorrectly refers to SEVP as the “Student and Exchange Visa Program” – attempts to bar all new international students, scholars and exchange visitors from pursuing any course of study at the university, for a period of six months. 

    With the stroke of a pen, the DHS Secretary and the President have sought to erase a quarter of Harvard’s student body

    Harvard University

    This time, the government framed the ban as a matter of national security, accusing Harvard of collaborating with China. It has repeatedly criticised the institution for failing to root out antisemitism on campus and failing to hand over information on international students.  

    For its part, hours before judge Burroughs’ ruling, Harvard amended a previous lawsuit, alleging both the June 4 proclamation and the DHS revocation were “part of a concerted and escalating campaign of retaliation by the government” in clear retribution for Harvard’s exercising its First Amendment rights to free speech.  

    “With the stroke of a pen, the DHS Secretary and the President have sought to erase a quarter of Harvard’s student body,” it reads, in what the complaint calls a “government vendetta against Harvard”.  

    Last year, Harvard hosted 6,793 international students, totalling over 27% of the entire student body, though Trump has mistakenly called the figure 31%.

    Meanwhile, on June 5, Harvard’s President Garber sent a letter to the Harvard community, informing students that “contingency plans” were being drawn up to allow students to continue their studies during the summer and the upcoming academic year.

    Reaffirming the “outstanding contributions” of international students, Garber vowed to “celebrate them, support them, and defend their interests as we continue to assert our Constitutional rights”.  

    Source link

  • Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s Actions to Dismantle Department of Education – CUPA-HR

    Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s Actions to Dismantle Department of Education – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | May 29, 2025

    On May 22, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction to block the Trump administration from taking action to close the Department of Education (ED). Specifically, the court order blocks the Trump administration from “carrying out the reduction-in-force” at ED previously announced and from implementing the executive order directing the secretary of education to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education.”

    Several Democrat-led states, school districts and teachers unions filed lawsuits challenging the Trump administration’s reduction in force (RIF) at the department, arguing that the RIF would prohibit ED from carrying out its statutory functions. In the order enjoining the Trump administration from enforcing its RIF, the federal judge sided with the plaintiffs, granting the preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs “have shown that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the form of financial uncertainty and delay damaging student education … impeded access to vital knowledge upon which students, districts, and educators rely, and … loss of essential services provided by the office of Federal Student Aid and the Office for Civil Rights.”

    As a result of the preliminary injunction, the Trump administration and ED are blocked from carrying out the reduction in force and implementing the order to close the department. The administration is also blocked from reinstating the reduction in force and executive order under a different name. ED is also directed to reinstate federal employees who were terminated or eliminated on or after January 20, 2025, as part of the RIF, and the Department of Education and the administration are required to file a status report describing the steps they have taken to comply with the order.

    Soon after the preliminary injunction was issued, the Trump administration filed an appeal to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Further decisions are pending, and CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for updates from the appeals court.



    Source link

  • Federal judge blocks Trump’s Education Dept. shutdown, orders reinstatement of laid off staff

    Federal judge blocks Trump’s Education Dept. shutdown, orders reinstatement of laid off staff

    This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters.

    A federal judge on May 22 issued a preliminary injunction blocking President Donald Trump’s executive order to shut down the U.S. Department of Education and said the agency must reinstate the employees who were fired as part of mass layoffs.

    After U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon announced the agency’s plans in March to slash its workforce by roughly half, she called it a first step in getting rid of the agency. Trump followed days later with his executive order aiming to eliminate the department, a move he has long wanted.

    But only Congress can actually eliminate the department, and the administration’s attempt at getting around that influenced U.S. District Judge Myong Joun’s Thursday ruling.

    The Trump administration argued that they implemented agency layoffs to improve “efficiency” and “accountability,” the Massachusetts judge wrote, but then said: “The record abundantly reveals that [the administration’s] true intention is to effectively dismantle the Department without an authorizing statute.”

    Joun added: “A department without enough employees to perform statutorily mandated functions is not a department at all. This court cannot be asked to cover its eyes while the Department’s employees are continuously fired and units are transferred out until the Department becomes a shell of itself.”

    Within hours of the Joun’s ruling, the Trump administration filed an appeal.

    “This ruling is not in the best interest of American students or families,” Madi Biedermann, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Communications, wrote in a statement.

    Calls for the injunction came from lawsuits filed by the Somerville and Easthampton schools districts in Massachusetts along with the American Federation of Teachers, other education groups, and 21 Democratic attorneys general.

    They argued that the gutting of the department rendered the agency incapable of performing many of its core functions required by Congress.

    For example, all of the attorneys from the agency’s general counsel office who handle grants for K-12 schools and grants under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, had been fired. The dismantling of the Office for Civil Rights made it difficult to enforce civil rights protections. The department’s Financial Student Aid programs, which provide financial assistance to almost 12.9 million students across approximately 6,100 postsecondary educational institutions, were also hampered.

    Trump’s executive order instructed McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the States and local communities” to the “maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law.”

    At the same time, the order said McMahon should ensure “the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely.”

    Trump said he would move the agency’s student loan portfolio to the Small Business Administration, and the Department of Health and Human Services would replace the Education Department’s role in “handling special needs.”

    Before the layoffs, the Education Department was the smallest of the 15 cabinet-level departments in terms of staffing, according to the judge, with around 4,100 employees. And the plaintiffs said the agency was strained meeting its obligations even then.

    The ruling was not based on the employees’ job rights, but rather how the agency was able to fulfill its obligations.

    “It’s not about whether employees have a right to a job,” said Derek Black, a University of South Carolina law professor. “It’s about whether the department can fulfill its statutory obligations to the states and to students.”

    The case made by former department employees, educational institutions, unions, and educators, Joun wrote, paints “stark picture of the irreparable harm that will result from financial uncertainty and delay, impeded access to vital knowledge on which students and educators rely, and loss of essential services for America’s most vulnerable student populations.”

    American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten heralded the judge’s ruling, calling it “a first step to reverse this war on knowledge and the undermining of broad-based opportunity.”

    But Biedermann, from the Education Department, said the ruling was unfair to the Trump administration.

    “Once again, a far-left Judge has dramatically overstepped his authority, based on a complaint from biased plaintiffs, and issued an injunction against the obviously lawful efforts to make the Department of Education more efficient and functional for the American people,” she said in a statement.

    Chalkbeat national editor Erica Meltzer contributed reporting.

    Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.

    For more news on federal policy, visit eSN’s Educational Leadership hub.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link