Tag: Injunction

  • Preliminary Injunction Halts Dismantling of the Department of Education (Todd Wolfson, AAUP)

    Preliminary Injunction Halts Dismantling of the Department of Education (Todd Wolfson, AAUP)

    We got great news yesterday: In a suit we brought with Democracy Forward, the AFT, and other allies in the labor movement, a district court in Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction halting the Trump administration’s unlawful effort to dismantle the Department of Education. 

    The massive reduction in force proposed by the administration would decimate crucial services the department provides to families across the country, severely limit access to education, and eviscerate funding for HBCUs and tribal colleges.

    We can’t do this work without your support. Will you become a member or make a donation to the AAUP Foundation today?

    Here’s some background on the case. In March, after having repeatedly expressed a desire to eliminate the Department of Education, the Trump administration announced a reduction in force that would cut its staff in half. Recognizing that the department was created by an act of Congress and was mandated to carry out a number of statutorily required programs, the administration claimed that it was not trying to eliminate the department but rather was seeking to improve “efficiency” and “accountability.”

    The court definitively rejected this claim, saying that the “defendants’ true intention is to effectively dismantle the Department without an authorizing statute. . . . 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.”

    The court also highlighted the impact of the cuts on students, educational institutions, and unions. For example, the court found that “higher education is also likely to become more expensive for students” as the staffing cuts “will put federal funding for Pell grants, work-study programs and subsidized loans at risk, reducing the pool of students able to attend college and posing an existential threat to many state university systems such as those intended to serve first generation college students.”

    The court found that the administration had violated two clauses of the US Constitution, and that its actions were beyond its authority as well as arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, the court issued a preliminary injunction requiring the department to reinstate staff and resume operations disrupted by the cuts.

    Perhaps because of skepticism about the administration’s willingness to follow directives of the judiciary, the court specifically required that the administration provide notice of this order of preliminary injunction within twenty-four hours to all its officers, and that it “file a status report with this Court within 72 hours of the entry of this Order, describing all steps the Agency Defendants have taken to comply with this Order, and every week thereafter until the Department is restored to the status quo prior to January 20, 2025.”

    What’s next: It is almost certain that the administration will appeal this decision and will likely seek to have the preliminary injunction stayed by the court of appeals while the case is pending.

    Trump’s agenda is a clear path to setting America back in quality and fairness in education. The AAUP will continue to stand up against these attacks and fight for a higher education system that serves all Americans. We can’t do it without you.

    Please join us as a member or make a donation today!

    In solidarity,
    Todd Wolfson, AAUP President
    Veena Dubal, AAUP General Counsel

    Source link

  • Harvard Wins Injunction to Protect International Enrollment

    Harvard Wins Injunction to Protect International Enrollment

    International students make up more than one-quarter of Harvard’s student body.

    APCortizasJr/iStock Unreleased/Getty Images

    Less than a day after having its ability to host international students revoked by the federal government, Harvard University successfully sued the Trump administration to block the move. A judge granted a temporary restraining order late Friday morning.

    Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced Thursday afternoon that the Trump administration had stripped Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification in a letter that vaguely accused Harvard of a “failure to adhere to the law.” 

    However, the letter did not name any specific violations of the law by Harvard.

    On Friday morning, Harvard threw a legal counterpunch, filing a lawsuit challenging the revocation of SEVP certification and seeking a temporary restraining order to halt the action, which could cost Harvard to suddenly lose more than 6,000 students if they are unable to enroll. (International enrollment typically makes up about a quarter of Harvard’s head count.) Beyond blocking new enrollments, the revocation would require current international students to transfer. 

    Harvard president Alan Garber blasted the SEVP revocation as “unlawful and unwarranted” and said it was a punitive effort by the Trump administration in response to Harvard’s rejection of demands to reform governance, admissions, hiring processes and more following allegations of antisemitism and harassment that stemmed from pro-Palestinian protests last year. (Harvard filed a separate lawsuit pushing back on those demands last month, prompting the Trump administration to retaliate by freezing $2.7 billion in grants and contracts, or about a third of its federal research funding.)

    “It imperils the futures of thousands of students and scholars across Harvard and serves as a warning to countless others at colleges and universities throughout the country who have come to America to pursue their education and fulfill their dreams,” Garber wrote in a message to campus.

    He added, “We will do everything in our power to support our students and scholars.”

    Harvard’s lawsuit echoed Garber’s points in an even sharper tone, accusing the federal government of blatantly violating the First Amendment and Harvard’s due process rights.

    “With the stroke of a pen, the government has sought to erase a quarter of Harvard’s student body, international students who contribute significantly to the University and its mission,” lawyers representing Harvard argued in Friday’s early-morning legal filing.

    Harvard’s lawsuit named DHS, Noem and other officials within the department as defendants, as well as the U.S. Departments of Justice and State and agency leaders.

    Assistant DHS secretary Tricia McLaughlin fired back at Harvard in a response to Inside Higher Ed.

    “This lawsuit seeks to kneecap the President’s constitutionally vested powers under Article II. It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments. The Trump administration is committed to restoring common sense to our student visa system; no lawsuit, this or any other, is going to change that. We have the law, the facts, and common sense on our side,” she wrote.

    Another Legal Setback

    A judge swiftly agreed with Harvard’s argument, signing off on the temporary restraining order to prevent revocation of the university’s SEVP certification within hours of the lawsuit being filed.

    In a brief opinion, a district court judge in Massachusetts wrote in response to Harvard’s legal filing that the temporary restraining order was “justified to preserve the status quo.” The judge blocked DHS from stripping SEVP certification, at least temporarily, and granted a hearing. 

    A date for the hearing was not specified in court documents.

    The temporary restraining order is one of multiple legal setbacks the Trump administration has faced recently as it has sought to pull student visas over minor infractions (and for constitutionally protected speech), cap federal research funding reimbursement rates, and slash staff at the Department of Education and other agencies. Many of those efforts face ongoing challenges.

    On Thursday, for example, a federal judge barred the Trump administration from firing thousands of Department of Education employees as part of a sweeping reduction of force.

    The federal government has already appealed that decision.

    ‘Do This Everywhere’

    The Trump administration’s latest action against Harvard prompted broad condemnation from academics and free speech groups, who argued that the federal government did not follow legal processes for stripping SEVP certification and had ignored the university’s due process rights.

    “The administration has clearly targeted Harvard in recent months. In doing so, it has violated not only Harvard’s First Amendment rights, but also the rights of the university’s students and faculty,” the free speech group Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression wrote in a Friday social media post. “We commend Harvard for standing up for itself. Free speech and academic freedom are essential to higher education. They are values worth fighting for.”

    Despite widespread concerns from academics and lawyers that stripping Harvard’s SEVP certification is not legal, multiple Republican officials have endorsed Noem’s actions.

    Rep. Randy Fine, a Republican who represents Florida and a member of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, cheered on the move in a Friday appearance on FOX Business. Fine, a two-time Harvard graduate, said the Trump administration should “do this everywhere” amid concerns about antisemitic behavior and harassment on college campuses.

    Fine also took a dim view of international students exercising their First Amendment rights.

    “We should not be bringing people into America to get an education who hate us. They should be coming here to get an education, and frankly they should keep their mouths shut beyond that. I don’t go into someone else’s house and complain about it when I’m there,” Fine said.

    Source link

  • Preliminary Injunction Issued Against DEI Provisions in Two Executive Orders

    Preliminary Injunction Issued Against DEI Provisions in Two Executive Orders

    by CUPA-HR | February 24, 2025

    On February 21, a U.S. district judge issued a preliminary injunction against portions of two of the Trump administration’s executive orders regarding DEI programs. The decision, issued in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, blocks federal agencies from taking action to withhold federal funding from federal contractors that conduct programs or initiatives related to DEI.

    Broadly speaking, “EO 14151: Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferences” and “EO 14173: Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” state that DEI and DEIA programs and initiatives violate federal civil rights law, and therefore terminate all DEI programs throughout the federal government. EO 14173 orders federal agencies to incorporate clauses in all federal contracts requiring each funding recipient to attest to compliance with all federal antidiscrimination laws and affirm that it does not operate any DEI programs.

    The preliminary injunction strikes down three separate provisions across these executive orders:

    • EO 14151 requires the federal government to terminate all equity-related grants or contracts within 60 days (known as the “Termination Provision”).
    • EO 14173 requires that every grant recipient or federal contractor affirm its compliance with all federal antidiscrimination laws and that it does not operate any DEI programs (known as the “Certification Provision”).
    • EO 14173 directs the attorney general, in consultation with other relevant agencies, to promulgate a report with recommendations to enforce civil rights laws and encourage the private sector to end DEI practices. The report is required to identify “the most egregious and discriminatory DEI practitioners in each sector of concern.” It also requires each agency to identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations as a way to deter DEI programs or principles. The EO lists institutions of higher education with endowments over $1 billion as potential targets for the civil compliance investigations (known as the “Enforcement Threat Provision”).

    The National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors, Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, and the mayor and city council of Baltimore, Maryland, challenged these three provisions, arguing that they violate free speech rights under the First Amendment and are unconstitutionally vague — violating the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs additionally alleged four types of irreparable harm: threat of loss of funds, uncertainty regarding future operations, loss of reputation, and chilled speech.

    The court ultimately ruled that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their constitutional complaints and adequately demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of irreparable harm. The decision concluded that EO 14173 offers no guidance or notice of what the government now considers illegal DEI, and that plaintiffs showed “substantial evidence of the risks of such arbitrariness,” and that by “threatening the private sector with enforcement actions based on those vague, undefined standards, the Enforcement Threat Provision is facially unconstitutional under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.”

    The preliminary injunction means that federal agencies may not:

    • pause, freeze, impede, block, cancel or terminate any awards, contracts or obligations, or change any current obligation terms on the basis of the Termination Provision;
    • require any contractor to make any certification or other representation pursuant to the Certification Provision; or
    • bring any enforcement action under the False Claims Act in relation to the Enforcement Threat Provision.

    The injunction does not speak to actions that federal agencies may have already taken in response to both executive orders. Nonetheless, the Trump administration will likely appeal the ruling. Given that the policies raised in these executive orders will hold widespread implications for federal contractors in the higher education community, CUPA-HR will continue to share further developments.



    Source link