Tag: DOJ

  • DOJ must not investigate elected officials for criticizing immigration enforcement

    DOJ must not investigate elected officials for criticizing immigration enforcement

    The following statement can be attributed to FIRE’s Director of Public Advocacy Aaron Terr:

    The Department of Justice is reportedly investigating elected officials for criticizing the administration’s immigration enforcement operations. If this is the basis for the investigation, it is blatantly unconstitutional and intolerable in a free society. The right to condemn government action without fear of government punishment is the foundation of the First Amendment. 

    This would not be the first time the administration has used boundless, imaginary definitions of “obstruction” or “incitement” that have no basis in the law and run headlong into constitutional limits. The few exceptions to the First Amendment are defined by narrow, exacting standards for a reason: to prevent the government from wielding its power to squash dissent. 

    If criticism of government policy can be rebranded as a crime, then constitutional protections become meaningless and the government becomes unaccountable. That is precisely the danger the First Amendment is meant to prevent, and it is a line no administration may cross.

    Source link

  • DOJ Report Compounds MSI Advocates’ Worries

    DOJ Report Compounds MSI Advocates’ Worries

    Minority-serving institutions sustained another blow after the U.S. Department of Justice released a December legal report declaring funding to many of these institutions as unconstitutional. That memo could reach further than the Education Department’s move to defund some of these programs, ramping up uncertainty for the institutions.

    Much like the Education Department in September, the DOJ argued these programs are unconstitutional because they require colleges to enroll a certain percentage of students from a particular racial or ethnic background to qualify, among other criteria. ED ultimately redirected hundreds of millions of dollars intended for Hispanic-serving institutions and other MSIs for fiscal year 2025; it remains unclear whether the DOJ memo will result in more of the same.

    But the 48-page document offers new insight into the dangers a wide range of MSI grant programs could be facing and how the administration is legally justifying its stance against the institutions.

    The Trump administration seems to be “doubling down” on its attacks on MSIs, offering some “legal justification for what they’ve already done, and in light of that justification, extending it to some additional programs that they did not pursue in the first go-around,” said John Moder, interim CEO of the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities.

    Mandatory Funds at Risk

    Similar to ED, the report by the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel uses an expansive interpretation of the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard that barred considering race in admissions.

    But the DOJ went further and called into question not just discretionary dollars but also congressionally mandated funds to MSIs, said Amanda Fuchs Miller, former deputy assistant secretary for higher education programs in the Biden administration and now president of the higher ed consultancy Seventh Street Strategies. The Education Department left mandatory funds alone in September, acknowledging in a news release that those funds “cannot be reprogrammed on a statutory basis,” but it would continue “to consider the underlying legal issues associated with the mandatory funding mechanism in these programs.”

    The DOJ implied that “they don’t have to give out the mandatory money as required anymore—in their opinion,” Miller said. But as far as she’s concerned, “the executive branch has to enforce statutes,” including discretionary and mandatory funding authorized by Congress.

    “They don’t have the authority to declare a statute unconstitutional,” she added.

    In contrast, the legal memo argued that the president may be able to reject statutes altogether “even if only parts of them are noxious.” And it concluded that “the race-based portions” of various programs—including funds for Hispanic-serving institutions, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian–serving institutions and Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander–serving institutions—are “inseverable,” meaning the unconstitutional parts, according to the DOJ, can’t be removed.

    The DOJ did, however, make some exceptions, including competitive grants to predominantly Black institutions (but not mandatory funds) and the Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program; the department claimed these programs could be stripped of “race-based provisions.” The memo also scrutinized two TRIO programs, the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program and Student Support Services, but ultimately considered them constitutional, provided the grants aren’t used “to further racially discriminatory ends.”

    This approach raises questions, Miller said. For example, the Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program was specifically designed to bolster engineering and science programs at MSIs, so what would it mean to continue the program without MSI status as a factor? She also stressed that Native Americans aren’t a racial category, according to federal law, which the administration has acknowledged in the past. But the DOJ memo seems to muddy the administration’s take on the issue, she said, by arguing that Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian–serving institutions and Native American–Serving nontribal institutions rely on “racial and ethnic classifications rather than political classifications.”

    Ultimately, “Congress needs to stand up and fight back for these schools that play key roles in their districts” and make sure its statutory authority is respected, Miller said.

    Some members of Congress have called out the DOJ and ED for stepping out of bounds. Rep. Bobby Scott, a Virginia Democrat and ranking member of the House education committee, called the DOJ memo “deeply at odds with the fundamental goal of the [Higher Education Act] to ensure all students, regardless of their background, can access an affordable, quality degree.” Sen. Alex Padilla, chair of the Senate Congressional Hispanic-Serving Institutions Caucus, said the DOJ opinion “ignores federal law.” But lawmakers have yet to share a game plan on if or how they plan to push back.

    Next Steps

    What happens next is unclear.

    Moder said the administration might withhold new funding for the flagged programs, rescind funds already given, or both.

    In that case, institutions could sue, he said, but that’s an expensive ordeal for colleges and universities that, by definition, are underresourced. To qualify for most of the programs targeted by the DOJ, institutions are required to have low per-student expenditures compared to similar institutions, meaning they have relatively few resources to spend on students. They also need to serve at least half low-income students, in addition to a certain percentage of students from a particular racial or ethnic background.

    “It’s an expensive proposition and a time-consuming proposition,” Moder said. Although MSIs could have already sued over their lost discretionary funds, “it’s not surprising that there hasn’t been a flurry of legal challenges presented to date.”

    HACU has been defending HSIs against a legal challenge from the state of Tennessee and the advocacy group Students for Fair Admissions, after ED declined to stand up for the institutions. The lawsuit argued that Tennessee institutions don’t meet the requirement for HSIs—enrolling 25 percent Hispanic students—and miss out on federal funds; therefore, the federal criteria are discriminatory based on race. HACU has since asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing it’s a moot issue now that ED took away the discretionary funds Tennessee protests.

    The hope is “it will leave the possibility of … Congress voting for renewed funding,” and eventually “a new administration to continue to administer it,” Moder said.

    Deborah Santiago, co-founder and CEO of Excelencia in Education, an organization focused on Latino student outcomes, believes the DOJ report could have a positive twist: It offers more insight into how the administration is thinking about MSIs—and more fodder to fight back, she said.

    The DOJ memo “went a little bit deeper on examples, and in doing so, created opportunities to understand where they’re coming from,” and to “challenge some of the basic framing and concepts that are in dispute,” said Santiago, who previously worked as deputy director of the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics.

    Notably, she said, the report didn’t take issue with the idea that “there is a clear federal policy goal in providing capacity-building for underresourced institutions.” Instead, it took aim at “racial quotas” and quibbled with whether “individual discrimination” against particular students or types of students occurred. But Santiago said it’s easy to argue back that MSI grants support underserved institutions, not individual students, and there’s a difference between racial quotas and enrollment thresholds.

    “MSIs are about institutional capacity-building and not about redressing individual student discrimination. I think that was a false framing that they put out there,” she said. “At the core, this is about persistent structural disadvantages of institutions and how the federal government can fund them.” And when the federal government has limited funds to invest, “you can make the case” that increasing academic quality at institutions with a persistent lack of resources and a disproportionate number of historically underrepresented students “is a clear federal role and responsibility.”

    She also pushed back on the idea that institutions that don’t get the money are discriminated against. By the same logic, “students who are not enrolled in military academies are being discriminated against because they’re not getting access” to investments in military academies, she said.

    She believes that the DOJ memo will help hone how MSIs and their supporters advocate for the institutions to members of Congress and others.

    “I think we need to reframe and make the case to our colleagues on the Hill,” she said.

    Source link

  • What the DOJ Opinion Means for FAFSA Data Sharing and MSIs

    What the DOJ Opinion Means for FAFSA Data Sharing and MSIs

    In a dramatic reversal of long-standing federal support for minority students, the Department of Justice has declared that key programs serving historically Black and Hispanic-serving institutions are unconstitutional. The ruling targets race-conscious scholarship access and federal aid data sharing, effectively dismantling decades of policy designed to close educational gaps. For many MSIs and their students, the shift represents a Trump-era rollback of racial equity in higher education, leaving institutions scrambling to protect access and funding in a suddenly hostile legal landscape.

    The U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel has delivered what may be one of the most consequential legal opinions affecting federal education policy in decades: a sweeping conclusion that a suite of federal programs tied to minority‑serving institutions (MSIs) and race‑specific scholarships are unconstitutional under current equal‑protection jurisprudence. 

    At the center of this interpretation is a fundamental shift in how federal racial criteria are viewed post-Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard/UNC. In that landmark affirmative‑action decision, the Supreme Court significantly tightened the permissible bounds of race‑conscious decision making. The DOJ memo applies that framework beyond admissions, asserting that programs awarding federal funds based on racial or ethnic enrollment thresholds — including MSI grant programs — “effectively employ a racial quota.” 

    One particularly striking aspect of the opinion is its treatment of access to Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) data by the United Negro College Fund and the Hispanic Scholarship Fund — organizations that award scholarships targeted to students of specific racial or ethnic backgrounds. The opinion deems it unconstitutional for these groups to receive FAFSA applicant data because the statute enabling such sharing confers access only to entities that grant race‑specific awards. 

    Supporters of aiding historically marginalized students and institutions view this as an unprecedented restriction that could severely constrain outreach and support for those populations. Critics charge the move fits a broader administrative pattern of dismantling federal race‑conscious programs and argue that it disregards the statutory authority Congress explicitly provided — including the discretionary authority vested in the Education Secretary to administer FAFSA data sharing.

    As one expert aide pointed out in private correspondence, the statutory provision that enabled FAFSA access was framed with Secretary discretion in mind — meaning it was lawful as written. But with DOJ now labeling such practices as impermissibly discriminatory, liability has been reallocated onto the administrative apparatus itself. That shift, in effect, insulates senior officials — including the Secretary — from culpability once the practice ends, leaving career bureaucrats to unwind systems built over years.

    The Policy and Legal Stakes

    For nearly four decades, the federal government has maintained a suite of targeted programs intended to close longstanding educational opportunity gaps. These include grants for MSIs, race‑specific scholarships, and data‑sharing mechanisms like FAFSA access that enable outreach to underrepresented students seeking financial aid.

    Beginning in July 2025, the Department of Education began scaling back discretionary grants to MSIs after the U.S. Solicitor General declined to defend race‑based criteria in court, particularly the Hispanic‑Serving Institutions definition requiring at least 25% Hispanic enrollment. By September, the Department officially announced the planned termination of most MSI discretionary grant funds for FY2025 — a decision informed by the constitutional concerns later articulated in the DOJ opinion. 

    Until now, many observers assumed that statutory authority and congressional backing provided a stable legal foundation for such programs. But the OLC’s memo challenges that assumption, concluding that race‑based eligibility criteria — whether for institutional support or student scholarships — are no longer defensible under current constitutional interpretation. 

    The implications extend far beyond MSI grants. If organizations that provide targeted scholarships based on race or ethnicity can no longer receive key federal administrative data, the practical capacity of those groups to serve students could be significantly hampered.

    Political and Institutional Reactions

    The DOJ opinion has drawn sharply polarized responses. Administration officials frame the memo as an affirmation of equal protection and a necessary correction to federal programs that, in their view, relied on impermissible racial criteria. Congressional allies of the Administration characterize the changes as ending “racial discrimination” in federal education policy.

    Conversely, Democratic legislators and MSI leaders condemn the opinion as ideologically driven and harmful to institutions that serve historically underserved populations. Critics say the analysis ignores longstanding bipartisan congressional support for such programs and portends deep cuts in educational opportunity. 

    Institutional leaders at a range of MSIs have expressed alarm, underlining that funding and support mechanisms now in jeopardy are “vital” to student success and campus mission. Many campuses are scrambling to assess fiscal exposure and consider contingency planning.

    Looking Ahead

    With federal policy in flux and several legal questions unresolved, higher education professionals face an uncertain environment. Institutions historically supported by race‑conscious federal programs may need to rethink recruitment, financial aid outreach, and partnerships with scholarship providers. Meanwhile, advocates and lawmakers may pursue legislative fixes or constitutional litigation to reshuffle the legal landscape once more.

    Whatever the outcome, the DOJ opinion marks a pivotal moment in federal student aid policy — one likely to reshape how race, equity, and opportunity are legally navigated in the years to come.

    HEI Reader Context: What This Means for MSIs

    • Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs): Loss of FAFSA data access and potential cuts to discretionary MSI grants could disrupt scholarship outreach, enrollment initiatives, and pipeline programs designed to recruit and retain underrepresented students. HBCUs may need to develop alternative channels for financial aid outreach, including direct partnerships with donors and private scholarship organizations.

    • Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs): Many HSIs rely on federal discretionary grants to supplement state funding and support programs for first-generation and low-income students. The DOJ opinion may force HSIs to reallocate institutional resources to cover programs previously funded through race-conscious federal grants.

    • Scholarship Organizations: Groups like the United Negro College Fund (UNCF) and the Hispanic Scholarship Fund (HSF) may no longer receive FAFSA data, limiting their ability to identify eligible students efficiently. Expect increased reliance on outreach campaigns, social media, and partnerships with local school districts.

    • Institutional Planning: MSIs should assess short-term financial exposure, prioritize scholarship communications, and explore private funding alternatives. Legal and policy monitoring will be critical as legislative or judicial responses evolve.

    Sources

    1. Inside Higher Ed. “DOJ Report Declares MSIs Unconstitutional.” December 22, 2025. Link

    2. Higher Ed Dive. “DOJ Says MSI Grant Funding Unconstitutional.” December 22, 2025. Link

    3. ED.gov. “US Department of Education Ends Funding for Racially Discriminatory Discretionary Grant Programs, Minority-Serving Institutions.” July 2025. Link

    4. EducationCounsel. “E-Update: September 22, 2025.” Link

    Source link

  • DOJ: Education Department’s race-based grants are unconstitutional

    DOJ: Education Department’s race-based grants are unconstitutional

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

    Dive Brief: 

    • The U.S. Department of Justice issued a legal memo earlier this month declaring that several of the U.S. Department of Education’s grant programs for minority-serving institutions and students from underrepresented backgrounds are unconstitutional. 
    • The memo, which was made public Friday, said the DOJ considered the grant programs — some of them decades-old — unlawful because they have racial criteria, such as requiring institutions to have a certain share of students from a particular racial or ethnic group. 
    • Continuing several of the programs would be unconstitutional, the DOJ said, adding the Education Department could instead redirect the funds. However, the memo concluded that some of them could continue under racially neutral criteria. 

    Dive Insight: 

    The Education Department had already canceled grants for MSIs before the DOJ released its memo. 

    In September, the Education Department said it would end roughly $350 million in discretionary grants for MSIs, arguing the funding was discriminatory because colleges had to enroll certain shares of racial or ethnic minority students to be eligible. However, the Education Department still disbursed $132 million in congressionally mandatory grant funding to MSIs. 

    In a statement Friday, U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon praised the new memo from the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel. 

    “We cannot, and must not, attach race-based conditions when allocating taxpayer funding,” McMahon said. “This is another concrete step from the Trump Administration to put a stop to DEI in government and ensure taxpayer dollars support programs that advance merit and fairness in all aspects of Americans lives.” 

    Citing the U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down race-conscious admissions in 2023, the memo found the following grant programs were unconstitutional and said that the Education Department may repurpose their funding:

    • Grant programs for Hispanic-serving institutions, including those aimed at improving their academic offerings and increasing the number of Hispanic and low-income students attaining STEM degrees. 
    • Grants for Alaska Native and Native-Hawaiian-serving institutions. 
    • Grants for Native American-serving, nontribal institutions. 
    • Grants for community-based organizations that primarily provide career and technical education for Native-Hawaiian students. 
    • Formula-based grants for predominantly-Black institutions, which are intended to be used to improve the colleges’ ability to serve low- and middle-income Black students. 

    However, the DOJ said the Education Department could continue the following programs so long as it set aside their race-based eligibility criteria: 

    • The Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program, which aims to increase the number of minority students entering science and engineering fields. 
    • The Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, which gives colleges funding to support students from disadvantaged backgrounds in research and other scholarly work. 
    • Competitive grant programs for predominantly-Black institutions, which has included funding for several types of initiatives, including establishing STEM programs and improving educational outcomes of African American men. 
    • Student Services Support Program, which provides funding to colleges to help them bolster student services. 

    The Education Department said it is reviewing the memo’s impact on its grant programs. 

    Virginia Rep. Bobby Scott, the top Democrat on the House’s education committee, slammed the memo in a statement Friday, arguing it was at odds with the Higher Education Act’s purpose of ensuring that students from all backgrounds “can access an affordable, quality degree.” 

    “A college degree remains the surest path to financial stability,” Scott said. “This is particularly true for low-income students and students of color whose educational and workforce opportunities have historically been limited by intergenerational poverty and systemic racism.”

    Source link

  • DOJ Report Declares MSIs Unconstitutional

    DOJ Report Declares MSIs Unconstitutional

    A DOJ report is the latest in the Trump administration’s attempts to dismantle minority-serving programs.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | d1sk and nullplus/iStock/Getty Images

    The Department of Justice has declared a slew of Department of Education programs and grants unconstitutional based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and the University of North Carolina.

    According to a report by the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), minority-serving institution (MSI) programs are unlawful because they award money to colleges and universities based on the percentage of students of a certain race. The report said such programs “effectively [employ] a racial quota by limiting institutional eligibility to schools with a certain racial composition” and should no longer be funded.

    The report also deemed it unconstitutional that two scholarship providers, the United Negro College Fund and the Hispanic Scholarship Fund, both of which award scholarships to students of a specific race, are given access to Free Application for Federal Student Aid data.

    In a statement from the education department, Secretary Linda McMahon said that the report is “another concrete step from the Trump Administration to put a stop to DEI in government and ensure taxpayer dollars support programs that advance merit and fairness in all aspects of Americans lives. The Department of Education looks forward to working with Congress to reform these programs.”

    The statement noted that the department is “currently evaluating the full impact of the OLC opinion on affected programs.”

    The OLC also evaluated the constitutionality of two TRIO programs, the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, a scholarship that helps students from underrepresented backgrounds work towards Ph.D.s, and Student Support Services, which provides grants for institutions to develop academic support infrastructure. It ultimately concludes that those programs are constitutional and may continue to be funded.

    Nevertheless, in ED’s announcement of the DOJ decision, those TRIO programs were included in a list of “affected programs.”

    The Trump administration’s attack on MSI programs began in July, when the U.S. Solicitor General declined to defend against a lawsuit challenging the definition of a Hispanic-serving institution (HSI) as one that enrolls a student body with at least 25 percent Hispanic students. In September, ED officially announced its plans to end these programs, terminating the majority of MSI grants for FY2025.

    Supporters of MSI programs strongly criticized the OLC’s report.

    “Today’s baseless opinion from the Justice Department is wrong, plain and simple. Donald Trump and his Administration are once again attacking the institutions that expand opportunity for millions of aspiring students of all backgrounds. The opinion ignores federal law, including Congress’ bipartisan support for our nation’s Hispanic-Serving Institutions and Minority-Serving Institutions, including more than 100 MSIs in California alone,” Senator Alex Padilla, a California Democrat who chairs the Senate HSI Caucus, wrote in a statement. “Every student deserves access to the American Dream. This unconscionable move by this Administration will harm millions of students who deserve better.”

    Presidents of institutions that could be impacted by the legal decision are also speaking out. Wendy F. Hensel, president of the University of Hawai’i, called the news “disappointing” in a statement to the campus community. UH is an Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian-serving institution, an Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving institution, and a Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education grantee; Hensel said these programs are “vital” to UH and the state of Hawai’i.

    She wrote that the university’s general counsel is examining the full report and that campus leadership is currently “evaluating the full scope of the impact on our campuses and programs and implementing contingency plans for the loss of funding.”

    “We recognize that this news creates uncertainty and anxiety for the students, faculty and staff whose work and educational pathways are supported by these funds. We are actively assessing how best to support the people and programs affected as we navigate this evolving legal landscape,” she wrote.

    Trump’s allies, however, applauded the report and ED’s efforts to end MSI programs.

    “Today’s announcement is a strong step by the Trump administration to end racial discrimination in our higher education system. These programs determine funding eligibility through arbitrary, race-based quotas which unfairly assume a student’s background determines his or her educational destiny,” Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Tim Walberg, a Republican representative from Michigan, wrote in a statement. “America was founded on the principles of freedom and equality, and that every citizen can chase the American Dream. In Congress, we are working with the Trump administration to create a fairer higher education system so every student has a strong chance at success.”

    Source link

  • DOJ plan to target ‘domestic terrorists’ risks chilling speech

    DOJ plan to target ‘domestic terrorists’ risks chilling speech

    Attorney General Pam Bondi reportedly sent a memo two weeks ago indicating how the federal government intends to target “domestic terrorist organizations.” That memo outlines how the Justice Department plans to implement President Trump’s National Security Presidential Memo 7. 

    To explain what’s wrong with Bondi’s memo, we need to bounce back and forth between it and NSPM-7. Think of it this way: NSPM-7 is an idea, and Bondi’s memo is a checklist in furtherance of that idea. At the same time, the memo isn’t quite a blueprint, because it still omits key details about what the Justice Department intends to do. But what it does include is alarming.

    NSPM-7 was issued in late September and announced a federal government effort to identify “domestic terror organizations.” It also listed specific ideologies, like “anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity,” as “common threads” motivating political threats and violence.

    In the memo, the attorney general ordered all federal law enforcement agencies to “review their files and holdings for Antifa and Antifa-related intelligence and information” and turn it over to the FBI within 14 days. The FBI is directed to then report to the deputy attorney general which groups (if any) are engaged in acts that “may constitute domestic terrorism.”

    Bondi’s memo also includes two new elements in this process: promoting the FBI’s terrorism tip line, and establishing a cash reward system for reports that lead to the identification and arrest of the leaders of domestic terrorism organizations.

    A few problems jump out at me.

    The Bondi memo, like NSPM-7, blurs the line between investigating crimes and ideologies

    Like NSPM-7 before it, Bondi’s memo states that recent political attacks share common motivating ideologies, saying that groups are using terrorism to advance agendas like “radical gender ideology, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, or anti-Christianity.” As I said in September, the government has inappropriately targeted groups by ideology in the recent past:

    During the Obama administration, the IRS targeted nonprofit groups with the words “Tea Party” or “Patriots” in their names, identifying groups by ideology and punishing them by subjecting them to extra processes. And its explanation was that this was just a “shortcut” — other organizations with similar profiles had violated IRS rules, so they jumped to targeting groups that used similar words.

    In 2023, the FBI distributed an internal memo linking “ethnically motivated violent extremists” to traditional Catholic ideology, a call for viewpoint-based targeting that was only exposed by a whistleblower and oversight from Congress. In 2022, an internal FBI memo linked the Gadsden flag and other patriotic symbols to violent extremism. And while such links do exist, and it makes sense for law enforcement to identify them, it also risks sweeping up ordinary Americans.

    These tactics create the risk that any member of any political movement could find themselves added to a government list and subjected to special scrutiny if others with the same ideology commit an ideologically motivated crime. But it’s not a crime (terrorism or otherwise) to hold “radical” beliefs about “gender ideology” or to take positions on core American values that contradict the government’s view.

    This happened before during the McCarthy era. Communist rhetoric resonated with some 1950s Americans who wanted working people to have decent wages, but that did not mean most American socialists were Soviet spies or conspired to overthrow the government. Nonetheless, accusations of vast criminality were used to justify sprawling government investigations into groups that espoused socialist views.

    You can’t vindicate American values against anti-American ideologies with un-American practices like warmed-over McCarthyism.

    I want to be clear that saying ideology should not be the starting point of an investigation is not at all to diminish the very real, ideologically-motivated threats faced by government employees, politicians, and political actors. The memos mention Charlie Kirk’s assassination and the October shooting at a Dallas ICE facility among other incidents; they could just as easily include the assassination of Minnesota State Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, the 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, or the 2017 shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise. There are people who want to hurt or kill public officials and public figures for doing their jobs, and those people will often offer ideological reasons for doing that.

    However, that some terrorists have an ideology does not make everyone with the same ideology a terrorist.

    And that is the core problem with this whole endeavor. People who conspire to engage in actual criminal behavior should be investigated, arrested, and prosecuted. But these memos aren’t narrowly focused on groups that exist for the purpose of ideologically motivated violence, which act to bring about violence; they broadly condemn particular viewpoints and lay a foundation for a government watchlist of American groups which share those viewpoints. And where does that get us? You can’t vindicate American values against anti-American ideologies with un-American practices like warmed-over McCarthyism.

    ‘Domestic terrorist organization’ designation is still a matter of AG whims

    While the phrase “domestic terrorist organization” sounds very official, it doesn’t have a statutory definition or accompanying due process protections, unlike its nominative counterpart, the foreign terrorist organization. NSPM-7 delegated to the attorney general the ability to recommend which groups should be so designated, but not whether they will be.

    Bondi’s memo directs federal law enforcement to provide information to the AG’s office that would presumably guide those initial recommendations, but offers no further information on duration or appeals. It doesn’t even suggest that a group so designated would be given notice of that designation.

    Why everything Pam Bondi said about ‘hate speech’ is wrong

    The nation’s top law enforcement officer doesn’t understand there is no hate-speech exception to the First Amendment — and that’s scary.


    Read More

    NSPM-7 essentially argues a domestic terrorist organization is an organization with members who commit acts meeting the statutory definition of domestic terrorism. That definition includes unlawful “acts dangerous to human life” that “appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population” or “influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.” It includes no requirement that the organization itself have unlawful aims or that the members’ actions are in furtherance of them. 

    By asking the FBI to compile “a list of groups or entities engaged in acts that may constitute domestic terrorism” as defined by statute, Bondi’s memo at first seems to be more narrowly focused. But that limitation remains an exercise of discretion, and could change as directed by the president or a successor. And it’s not even entirely clear that the list provided by the FBI is the exclusive source in Bondi’s decision-making process, or what that process looks like after she received the list. 

    One reason to question how much this definition is cabined in practice is that the administration has designated Antifa a domestic terrorist organization. But Antifa is mostly an ideology, not a defined organization, as such. There might well be domestic terrorist organizations that hold Antifa-aligned tenets, but a philosophy is not an organization, even if some organizations refer to it in their names. Designating Antifa as a terrorist organization is a little like planning to meet someone at a restaurant and you pick the restaurant “hamburger.” 

    Doxing isn’t ‘domestic terrorism’

    The Bondi memo also repeats, and expands on, NSPM-7’s decision to treat doxing (publishing information online that makes specific people identifiable) as a crime that counts as “domestic terrorism.” But as I said in September, it often isn’t:

    Doxing is protected speech unless it violates some other existing law. After all, doxing describes much of the basic activity of news media, where otherwise unknown information is found and published, and frequently, that information is personally identifiable. That’s especially true when the “doxing” the government is upset about is information related to public employees in the course of their duties, such as the location of ICE agents.

    Bondi does not agree. After someone developed ICEBlock, an app for users to share the locations of ICE activity, Bondi said in an interview: “We are looking at it, we are looking at him, and he better watch out, because that’s not protected speech.”

    Note that ICEBlock is, in fact, protected speech. The ability to share facts about public employees in the execution of their duties in public spaces is not a gray area under the First Amendment; it’s protected speech.

    The theory under which Bondi seems to be operating is that if people know where ICE activity is happening, they will use that information either to engage in violence against agents or to evade lawful court orders. In July, congressional republicans sent Bondi a letter stating: “Sharing real-time locations of ICE officers paints targets on their backs, increasing the likelihood that they face immediate resistance.”

    ICEBlock was removed from the Apple store in October (as were similar apps and groups on other platforms), with Apple saying it took that decision “based on information we’ve received from law enforcement about the safety risks associated with ICEBlock.” Earlier this week, ICEBlock’s developer sued the Trump administration, arguing that pressure from the government led to the app’s removal.

    Trump’s ‘domestic terrorism’ memo chillingly targets people by ideology

    Trump’s “domestic terrorism” memo blurs the line between policing crimes and policing beliefs — with chilling echoes of McCarthyism.


    Read More

    ICE agents have indeed faced violence, including a July shooting at a facility in Alvarado, Texas and a September sniper attack in Dallas that left two detainees and the gunman dead. So far, however, there is no evidence these actions were related to ICEBlock or any other ICE-tracking app or website. And there are lots of legitimate reasons people might want to know the location of ICE activity that don’t involve violence or frustrating the enforcement of laws — like avoiding traffic delays or not wanting to be caught in the middle of a mass arrest that doesn’t involve them. An app that shows the location of ICE raids no more aids terrorism against ICE agents than a street map showing a residential area aids home invasions. 

    References to doxing as “acts of domestic terrorism” in the Bondi memo could be the administration doubling down on its condemnation of ICEBlock and similar apps, hoping to at least chill their use by implication, if not outright threaten to prosecute them for aiding domestic terrorism. Treating doxing (which is protected speech) as domestic terrorism opens the door to government investigations of people who oppose ICE with truthful, public information.

    Anonymous tip line exacerbates potential for abuse

    The president and AG have identified a number of ideologies shared by domestic terrorists, argued these shared ideologies indicate group sponsorship, and want to encourage people to make more reports (anonymous or otherwise) about the topic. The FBI already has a tip line, and it accepts anonymous reports. Bondi’s memo just directs that the FBI consider how to better promote it for this specific purpose. 

    But what is the specific purpose that the administration intends to promote? Both NSPM-7 and the Bondi memo seem to target both crime (which they should) and beliefs (which they should not). Blurring the line between the two could make this a hotline for reporting wrongthink. We have seen the effect of anonymous reporting hotlines for ideological wrongthink in the context of campus Bias Response Teams:

    They frequently record accusations without providing a method of contesting their reports or even identifying the accusing party. Vague accusations of racism rooted in innocuous behavior is an exceptionally common feature of cancellation attempts. In promising to punish (potentially with police help) accusations of racism while obscuring the identity and motives of the accuser, BRTs are perfect engines for ideological abuse.

    Bondi, Vice President JD Vance, and Stephen Miller have all recently called for punishing non-criminal behavior through either state power or cancel culture. An FBI hotline collecting reports of non-criminal activity (like doxing) would be a troubling escalation — one that should trouble even those who agree with the spirit of Bondi’s memo. That’s because the power the hotline grants would exist for the next administration, too, which might not see the world in quite the same way. 

    All of this creates a real chilling effect

    As I wrote in September, “when the president uses his pen to take aim at anything, it will cause a chilling effect.” The attorney general’s pen is no less frosty as it conveys the message of likely or possible criminal prosecution.  

    In a footnote, Bondi’s memo says that “no investigation may be opened based solely on activities protected by the First Amendment” or other civil rights. But it also identifies protected speech — doxing — as a criminal act of terrorism. What other non-criminal activities might yield investigations? Presumably things related to the viewpoints listed in NSPM-7 and reiterated again in the Bondi memo. In turn, Americans will act rationally — and become less likely to say what they really think.

    We might know more in 30 days, when the FBI reports to the deputy AG the results of its review of groups. Check back then for more.

    (H/t to Ken Klippenstein for actually publishing the memo)

    Source link

  • DOJ Sues California Over In-State Tuition for Noncitizens

    DOJ Sues California Over In-State Tuition for Noncitizens

    The U.S. Department of Justice sued the state of California on Thursday, challenging a state law that allows undocumented students to pay in-state tuition rates. The lawsuit also targets the California Dream Act, which offers state financial aid to undocumented students who meet certain requirements.

    The complaint, filed in the Eastern District of California, targets the state, Governor Gavin Newsom, state attorney general Rob Bonta, the University of California Board of Regents, the California State University Board of Trustees and the California Community Colleges’ Board of Governors.

    “California is illegally discriminating against American students and families by offering exclusive tuition benefits for non-citizens,” Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a statement.

    California marks the sixth state the federal government has sued over such policies, but unlike some of the others, California plans to fight back. The state is home to more than 102,000 undocumented students, who have been permitted to pay in-state tuition rates since 2001 if they met certain requirements. Undocumented students have also been allowed to access state financial aid for more than a decade, according to the Higher Education Immigration Portal.

    Newsom has repeatedly pushed back on the Trump administration’s policies, including immigration crackdowns. The DOJ filed another lawsuit against the state on Monday, after Newsom signed a bill banning face coverings for federal immigration agents. The DOJ also recently sued Newsom and California Secretary of State Shirley Weber over the state’s redistricting plan.

    Bondi said in her statement that the DOJ will “continue bringing litigation against California until the state ceases its flagrant disregard for federal law.”

    But Newsom isn’t backing down.

    “The DOJ has now filed three meritless, politically motivated lawsuits against California in a single week,” Marissa Saldivar, a spokesperson for the governor’s office, said in a statement to Inside Higher Ed. “Good luck, Trump. We’ll see you in court.”

    By contrast, Texas and Oklahoma, faced with similar lawsuits this summer, swiftly sided with the DOJ, quashing in-state tuition benefits for their undocumented students. The Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education also agreed to stop offering in-state tuition to noncitizens in September, a few months after the DOJ sued, but the legal battle is ongoing. A judge recently allowed a group of Kentucky undocumented students, represented by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, to intervene in the case. Legal fights in Minnesota and Illinois have also continued as the states defend their in-state tuition policies against DOJ challenges.

    The government argues that such laws violate a federal statutory provision that says undocumented people can’t receive higher ed benefits unless citizens are also eligible. The DOJ has asserted that states can’t permit undocumented students in a state to pay lower tuition rates while denying out-of-state citizens the same benefit. Proponents of California’s current policy argue it allows any nonresident who meets certain requirements—including spending three years in a California high school—to access in-state tuition, not just undocumented students.

    Rachel Zaentz, a spokesperson for the University of California system, said system leaders believe they’ve acted within the law.

    “For decades, the University of California has followed applicable state and federal laws regarding eligibility for in-state tuition, financial aid, and scholarships,” Zaentz said in a statement sent to Inside Higher Ed. “While we will, of course, comply with the law as determined by the courts, we believe our policies and practices are consistent with current legal standards.”

    California Community Colleges Chancellor Sonya Christian said in a similar memo that the system “will follow all legal obligations and fully participate in the judicial process alongside our state partners” but “statutes referenced in the lawsuit have been in place for many years and have been implemented in accordance with long-standing legal guidance.”

    “Although we cannot comment on ongoing litigation, our commitment remains unchanged: we will continue to ensure that all students who qualify under state law have access to an affordable, high-quality education,” Christian said. “We will also continue to comply fully with all current federal and state requirements.”

    Iliana Perez, executive director of the advocacy organization Immigrants Rising, called the latest lawsuit an “an affront to the decades of hard-fought student-led advocacy for equitable access to postsecondary education.” She also noted the challenge comes just a week before college applications are due at public four-year institutions in the state.

    “This challenge is a callous attempt to have students second-guess their dreams,” Perez said in a statement. “We have one message for this Administration; we will not be deterred!”

    Source link

  • DOJ targets college access for undocumented students in 6th lawsuit

    DOJ targets college access for undocumented students in 6th lawsuit

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

    Dive Brief:

    • The U.S. Department of Justice has sued six states over laws that allow in-state tuition rates and scholarships for students regardless of their immigration status. The latest legal challenge was filed Thursday against California for its “California Dream Act.”
    • The lawsuit seeks to enjoin California laws that allow state residents to receive in-state tuition regardless of immigration status. The lawsuits — also filed against Minnesota, Texas, Kentucky, Illinois and Oklahoma — could impact tuition for dual enrollment, adult education, and career and technical education training programs. 
    • “Federal law prohibits aliens illegally present in the United States from receiving in-state tuition benefits that are denied to out-of-state U.S. citizens,” the Justice Department said in its lawsuit, which is challenging the states under the supremacy clause. “There are no exceptions.” 

    Dive Insight:

    The lawsuits come in light of a February executive order prohibiting federal resources for undocumented immigrants and as the U.S. Department of Education has implemented the order to restrict education-related programs. 

    As part of those restrictions, which were part of a coordinated effort across agencies, students could be required to undergo a citizenship and immigration status check to qualify for tuition for dual enrollment and similar early college programs for high-schoolers. 

    According to the Trump administration, that’s “because those programs provide individualized payments or assistance beyond that of a basic public education.” 

    The administration’s implementation of the executive order also restricted Head Start, the federal early childhood education program meant to level the playing field for low-income families, to “American citizens.” That policy change was successfully challenged in court in multiple lawsuits and is currently on pause in states that sued the government.

    However, other program areas impacted by the Education Department’s enforcement of the order are still in effect in some places, including high school students’ eligibility for college-level and career courses.

    “California is illegally discriminating against American students and families by offering exclusive tuition benefits for non-citizens,” said U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi in a Thursday statement, adding that her department “will continue bringing litigation against California until the state ceases its flagrant disregard for federal law.”

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office, however, called the DOJ’s efforts “meritless, politically motivated lawsuits.” 

    “Good luck, Trump,” said Marissa Saldivar, Newsom’s spokesperson, in an email to K-12 Dive. “We’ll see you in court.”

    The office maintains that its tuition exemption applies to all residents who meet the criteria, regardless of where they were born, and it is not discriminating against U.S. citizens. 

    Out of the states sued so far, Texas and Oklahoma have complied, with Texas suddenly ending a 24-year-old law within hours of the Justice Department filing a lawsuit in June. 

    Prior to the Justice Department’s lawsuits, 25 states and the District of Columbia allowed in-state tuition for undocumented students, according to the Higher Ed Immigration Portal, which tracks the issue. That number has fallen to 22 in addition to Washington, D.C.

    There are an estimated 620,000 undocumented K-12 students in the United States, with most states home to thousands of such students, according to 2021 data from Fwd.us. 

    According to federal data, nearly 2.5 million high school students were enrolled in at least one dual enrollment course from a college or university in 2022-23.

    Source link

  • DOJ sues California over in-state tuition for undocumented students

    DOJ sues California over in-state tuition for undocumented students

    Dive Brief:

    • The U.S. Department of Justice is suing California over its laws allowing certain undocumented college students to pay in-state tuition rates at public colleges and receive state-administered scholarships.
    • In a Thursday court filing, the agency argued that in-state tuition rates for undocumented students illegally provide benefits not offered to all U.S. citizens and asked a federal judge to rule California’s laws unconstitutional.
    • The lawsuit, which also names as defendants Gov. Gavin Newsom and the governing boards of California’s three public college systems, marks the sixth the DOJ has brought against states with in-state tuition policies for certain undocumented students.

    Dive Insight:

    California is home to roughly 103,000 undocumented residents enrolled in higher education — accounting for about a fifth of some 510,000 undocumented students in the U.S. — according to the Higher Ed Immigration Portal.

    Since 2001, a California law known as AB 540 has allowed students to pay in-state tuition at its three public higher ed systems if they attended a state high school for at least three years and earned their high school diploma or equivalent in California. Undocumented students must also sign an affidavit saying they have either filed an application to gain legal status or plan to once they are eligible.

    A 2017 law broadened that eligibility and permits students to reach the three-year attendance threshold by combining any time spent at a California high school, community college, adult school or carceral education program.

    It also allows students who completed at least three years full-time high school coursework anywhere to qualify for the waiver if they attended at least three years of their K-12 education in California.

    Leaders from the state’s public college systems — the University of California, California State University, and California Community Colleges — supported the expansion of the in-state tuition policy.

    Both laws apply to both U.S. citizens and immigrants without legal status.

    But U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a Thursday statement that policies are “illegally discriminating against American students and families” and that California is demonstrating “flagrant disregard for federal law.”

    Since 1998, U.S. law has prohibited immigrants without legal status from receiving any higher education benefit based on their residency, “unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit … without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.”

    The agency’s lawsuit is not the first time California’s in-state tuition law has faced legal opposition. One challenge to AB 540 that similarly argued the policy violated federal law made it to the California Supreme Court in 2010.

    However, the court upheld AB 540, ruling it did not violate federal law because students seeking in-state tuition status did not need to be California residents.

    The DOJ argued Thursday that this decision was incorrect and that federal courts should reject it. 

    “Allocating lower tuition rates on the basis of high school attendance is a proxy for residence,” running afoul of federal law, the agency said.

    Using the same argument, the DOJ lawsuit also targets a 2011 law permitting AB 540-eligible undocumented students to receive state-administered scholarships and aid and a law passed in 2014 establishing a student loan program for them.

    Gaining an in-state tuition waiver for California can have big cost implications for prospective students, as the state’s public colleges charge some of the highest out-of-state tuition premiums in the U.S., according to the College Board.

    The University of California published tuition and fees for out-of-state students who started in 2025-26 were $37,602 more a year than for their in-state counterparts.

    At the University of California, Berkeley, that means out-of-state, full-time undergraduates who first enrolled this fall would pay $55,080 if they did not receive financial aid or scholarships — more than double the $17,478 their in-state counterparts would pay sans aid.

    Even with aid and institutional scholarships, out-of-state students saw a stark difference. U.S. News & World Report estimated that the average total cost of attendance at UC Berkeley for those receiving need-based aid was $16,636 for in-state students and $66,625 for those from outside of California.

    The Cal State system’s published tuition and fees for out-of-state are also higher than for in-state students. Its 23 campuses charge a base rate of $6,450 for in-state undergraduate tuition and fees for the 2025-26 academic year. This year, out-of-state students pay at least $444 more per credit.

    Source link

  • UC Berkeley TPUSA Event Protests Spark Arrests, DOJ Probe

    UC Berkeley TPUSA Event Protests Spark Arrests, DOJ Probe

    Protesters confronted police outside a Turning Point USA event on UC Berkeley’s campus Nov. 10.

    Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

    Protests of a Turning Point USA event at the University of California, Berkeley, campus Monday sparked arrests and investigation announcements from top U.S. Department of Justice officials, who alleged “Antifa” involvement. The DOJ was already investigating the UC system over various allegations, and the Trump administration has demanded UCLA pay $1.2 billion and make other concessions.

    “Antifa is an existential threat to our nation,” Attorney General Pam Bondi posted on X Tuesday. “The violent riots at UC Berkeley last night are under full investigation by the FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Force.”

    Harmeet K. Dhillon, the assistant attorney general supervising the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, also said her division will investigate. “I see several issues of serious concern regarding campus and local security and Antifa’s ability to operate with impunity in CA,” she wrote on X.

    Dan Mogulof, a UC Berkeley spokesperson, told Inside Higher Ed Wednesday that there was only one reported incident of violence: A person with a ticket to the event was hit in the head by a glass bottle or jar thrown from a crowd of protesters. The victim was transported to Highland Hospital by ambulance but was “upright and conscious,” Mogulof said, adding that police are reviewing videos to see who might have thrown the object.

    In an incident that Mogulof said people mistakenly believed was connected to the protest, the City of Berkeley Police Department said its officers were monitoring the protest when they saw a fight between two men. Police determined one of them had stolen a chain from the other and the other was attempting to reclaim it, and the man who allegedly stole the chain was arrested on suspicion of robbery and battery resulting in injury.

    Mogulof also said campus police arrested two people for allegedly failing to comply with directions and, the night before the protest, arrested four students for alleged felony vandalism for trying to hang something on the historic Sather Gate. At the protest itself, Mogulof said, there were people who “self-identified as Antifa,” but he didn’t know whether they were part of an organized group.

    In a statement, the university said, “There is no place at UC Berkeley for attempts to use violence or intimidation to prevent lawful expression or chill free speech. The University is conducting a full investigation and intends to fully cooperate with and assist any federal investigations.”

    Source link