Tag: Judge

  • Judge orders release of Tufts student Rümeysa Öztürk

    Judge orders release of Tufts student Rümeysa Öztürk

    A federal judge has ordered the immediate release of Tufts student Rümeysa Öztürk, who faces deportation for writing an op-ed critical of Israel. 

    “Her continued detention cannot stand,” said Judge William Sessions III.

    Judge Sessions explained the government provided no evidence Öztürk engaged in violence or any other crimes. “The reason she’s been detained is simply and purely the expression she made,” he said. The judge also warned her detention chills millions of noncitizens from expressing their views “for fear of being whisked away from their home.”

    Below is a statement from FIRE Supervising Senior Attorney Conor Fitzpatrick, praising the order:

    The court rightly found Öztürk’s detention unlawful and an affront to the First Amendment. No one in America — citizen or not — should fear the government’s wrath for speaking their mind.

    Last week, FIRE was joined by a nonpartisan coalition that included the National Coalition Against Censorship, Cato, PEN America, and the Rutherford Institute calling for the release of Ms. Öztürk and all others detained and targeted for deportation based on protected speech.

    Source link

  • Judge Blocks Energy Dept. Plan to Cap Indirect Cost Rates

    Judge Blocks Energy Dept. Plan to Cap Indirect Cost Rates

    A federal judge temporarily blocked the U.S. Department of Energy’s plan to cap universities’ indirect research cost reimbursement rates, pending a hearing in the ongoing lawsuit filed by several higher education associations and universities.

    Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts wrote in the brief Wednesday order that the plaintiffs had shown that, without a temporary restraining order, “they will sustain immediate and irreparable injury before there is an opportunity to hear from all parties.”

    Plaintiffs include the Association of American Universities, the American Council on Education, the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities and nine individual universities, including Brown, Cornell and Princeton Universities and the Universities of Michigan, Illinois and Rochester. They sued the DOE and department secretary Chris Wright on Monday, three days after the DOE announced its plan.

    Department spokespeople didn’t return Inside Higher Ed’s requests for comment Thursday afternoon.

    DOE’s plan is to cap the reimbursement rates at 15 percent. Energy grant recipients at colleges and universities currently have an average 30 percent indirect cost rate. The Trump administration has alleged that indirect costs are wasteful spending, although they are extensively audited.

    The DOE sends more than $2.5 billion a year to over 300 colleges and universities. Part of that money covers costs indirectly related to research that may support multiple grant-funded projects, including specialized nuclear-rated facilities, computer systems and administrative support costs.

    The department’s plan is nearly identical to a plan the National Institutes of Health announced in February, which a judge also blocked.

    Source link

  • Federal judge freezes Energy Department’s 15% cap on indirect costs

    Federal judge freezes Energy Department’s 15% cap on indirect costs

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

    A federal judge Wednesday temporarily blocked the U.S. Department of Energy from implementing a 15% cap on grant funding for indirect costs. The ruling came just days after a dozen higher education associations and colleges sued the department, calling the new policy an overstep of authority and a threat to U.S. research and advancement.

    In the ruling Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs said the plaintiffs — including higher ed groups like the American Council on Education and threatened colleges like the University of Michigan and Brown University — had successfully demonstrated that they would “sustain immediate and irreparable injury” if the policy were allowed to proceed in tandem with the lawsuit. 

    Burroughs’ temporary restraining order bars the Energy Department — until further court order — from terminating grants, either under the challenged policy or “based on a grantee’s refusal to accept an indirect cost rate less than their negotiated rate.” The judge is also requiring the department to submit biweekly reports confirming that the federal funds are being distributed during the pause.

    When announcing the funding cap last Friday, the Energy Department said the move would save $405 million annually and reduce what it called inefficient spending. Indirect research costs typically include overhead expenses such as facilities and administrative support staff.

    The department said the change would affect over 300 colleges and that it would terminate grants to any institutions that failed to comply.

    But the plaintiffs said the policy’s rapid implementation would give institutions no choice but to scale back funding and lay off staff.

    Their lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, called the Energy Department’s policy “a virtual carbon copy” of one announced in February by the National Institutes of Health. A federal judge permanently blocked NIH’s plan to cap indirect cost funding at 15% earlier this month, a decision the agency quickly appealed. The NIH plan would cost research universities billions in annual funding.

    “DOE’s action is unlawful for most of the same reasons and, indeed, it is especially egregious because DOE has not even attempted to address many of the flaws the district court found with NIH’s unlawful policy,” the plaintiff’s lawsuit said.

    The next hearing in the case is set for April 28 before the same court. 

    Source link

  • Judge Temporarily Blocks Cuts at Sonoma State

    Judge Temporarily Blocks Cuts at Sonoma State

    Cuts at Sonoma State University are on pause after a judge found leaders had not followed necessary procedures in winding down academic programs amid an ongoing budget crunch.

    Sonoma County Judge Kenneth English ruled that the university sidestepped its own written policies when it announced plans to ax multiple academic programs; he issued a temporary restraining order to halt the process. According to university policies, Sonoma State is required to include the Academic Senate in decisions about program eliminations. But that allegedly didn’t happen, according to a lawsuit to stop the cuts filed on behalf of seven students.

    Sonoma State has denied circumventing its own policies.

    At the heart of the lawsuit is a fight over athletics, which Sonoma State plans to cut entirely. All seven plaintiffs played various sports at the university, which competes at the NCAA Division II level. However, the judge’s ruling did not halt the administration’s plans to eliminate athletics; the restraining order applied only to the academic programs for now.

    It will remain in effect until May 1, the date of the next hearing in the case.

    A Fight Over Cuts

    In January, Sonoma State—part of the California State University system—announced sweeping cuts, citing a nearly $24 million budget deficit.

    “The University has had a budget deficit for several years. It is attributable to a variety of factors—cost of personnel, annual price increases for supplies and utilities, inflation—but the main reason is enrollment,” Interim President Emily Cutrer wrote in an announcement.

    She noted that enrollment at SSU had dropped by 38 percent since it peaked in 2015 at 9,408 students, according to federal data.

    Sonoma State had already taken moves over the last two years to close its persistent budget gap, including offering buyouts and freezing hiring, among other measures. But those actions “are not enough,” Cutrer wrote. After making piecemeal cuts in prior years, she announced a plan to eliminate more than 20 academic programs, let 46 faculty contracts lapse and ax athletics.

    But at least part of that plan is now on hold.

    Legal counsel for the plaintiffs requested a temporary restraining order to stop the shutdown of programs, arguing that their clients “will suffer irreparable harm and the Decision will be unable to be reversed even after it is ultimately found to be unlawful, or if new Sonoma State leadership or the California legislature seek to reverse the decision,” according to an April 10 court filing.

    David Seidel, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, who is also a graduate of Sonoma State, where he played soccer, told Inside Higher Ed that he was concerned about the abrupt nature of the planned program cuts, which he alleged were illegal and “extremely damaging” to students.

    He added that multiple student athletes transferred to Sonoma State over the winter. If officials were aware that SSU planned to cut athletics, as they announced in January, he believes those students were lured by false promises to play for programs that may no longer exist.

    “This is a failure of leadership,” Seidel said.

    While he recognizes that the university may still move forward with the cuts, he wants to see the process restarted under new leadership and using the procedures SSU allegedly bypassed.

    Seidel also plans to address concerns related to athletics at the May 1 hearing.

    “The temporary restraining order does not affect athletics at this time. Of course, that’s still very much a live issue that we will be pursuing on May 1, and we’re seeking a preliminary junction on athletics as well. Sonoma State and [the California State University system] have passed very specific policies and regulations with respect to discontinuing academic programs,” Seidel said. “And it isn’t necessarily true that those also apply to athletics.”

    In an email to Inside Higher Ed, SSU rejected the notion that it violated its own policies.

    “SSU maintains that the university followed its established policies regarding academic discontinuation, including communicating with and considering feedback from all programs impacted by the proposed reductions,” SSU spokesperson Jeff Keating wrote. “Yesterday’s ruling set a later date when the court will more fully review the parties’ positions, including evidence from the university that SSU is complying with its academic discontinuation policy.”

    Other Challenges

    The court decision came amid an already challenging week for Sonoma State.

    At a legislative forum on Monday, state lawmakers criticized Sonoma State’s plans to pull the university out of its fiscal crisis. Beyond the cuts, administrators have developed a blueprint known as Bridge to the Future, which aims to increase enrollment by 20 percent within the next five to seven years, launch new programs and carry out various other actions. But some lawmakers took issue with the plan, arguing it was too light on specifics.

    Sonoma State’s recent financial woes have also been accompanied by leadership turnover.

    Cutrer, the interim president, is Sonoma State’s third leader in as many years after both her predecessors were felled by scandal. In 2022, then-president Judy Sakaki resigned after she was accused of mishandling a sexual harassment scandal tied to her husband, Patrick McCallum, who was accused of acting inappropriately with several university employees. McCallum also defied a ban to stay off the Sonoma State campus while Sakaki was president.

    Sonoma State’s next president, Mike Lee, retired abruptly last year after he was placed on administrative leave when he struck a deal with pro-Palestinian protesters to review contracts to consider divestment opportunities and agreed to an academic boycott of Israel. CSU officials accused Lee of insubordination in making the deal with protesters and ultimately walked back the agreement with students.

    Source link

  • Judge Rules Drake Didn’t Defame Des Moines Community College

    Judge Rules Drake Didn’t Defame Des Moines Community College

    A federal judge recently dismissed claims that Drake University defamed Des Moines Area Community College, the latest development in a fraught trademark battle between the two institutions, the Des Moines Register reported.

    Their ongoing legal dispute, which began last summer, is over the letter “D.”

    Drake University sued the community college after it changed its logo to a simple, block-style “D.” The university has used a “D” as its logo for decades and argued the similar branding creates confusion.

    U.S. Chief District Judge Stephanie Rose concluded in November that Drake was likely to prevail, given the logos’ similar color schemes and other details, and issued a preliminary injunction that the community college stop using the new logo. The order led to two pending appeals, one from the community college to reverse the preliminary injunction and one from Drake asserting the ruling didn’t include some older logos. The community college achieved some wins in February when Rose determined DMACC tried in “good faith” to change the logo and Drake should put more money toward helping the college switch the logo if Drake ultimately wins the case.

    Meanwhile, counterclaims from DMACC accused Drake of defamation. The college dropped those claims after Drake asked the court to dismiss them but then brought defamation claims against the university again on behalf of the Des Moines Area Community College Foundation after Drake sent out an email about the case to its alumni in July.

    Rose wrote on Friday that the foundation took “giant interpretive leaps from the content of the email” such that the defamation claims were “untenable.”

    “While zealous advocacy is expected, counsel must ground their pleadings in reasonable factual and legal interpretations,” she chided.

    Drake President Marty Martin said in an email statement to The Des Moines Register that he was pleased by the outcome. But DMACC shows little sign of giving up.

    “DMACC and the DMACC Foundation continue to believe that Drake does not own the letter ‘D’ and the scope of Drake’s rights are now the subject of appeal,” spokesperson Dan Ryan said in a statement.

    Source link

  • Judge blocks cuts to Education Department teacher training grants

    Judge blocks cuts to Education Department teacher training grants

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

    The U.S. Department of Education cannot terminate three educator training grant programs, a federal judge ordered on Monday.

    Specifically, the Education Department is enjoined from ending any grants provided through the three congressionally appropriated programs — the Supporting Effective Educator Development Grant Program, the Teacher Quality Partnership Program, and the Teacher and School Leader Incentive Program, according to the ruling from Judge Julie Rubin of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

    In addition to the injunction, the three plaintiffs — teacher preparation groups that sued the Education Department for making cuts to over 70 of these federal grant programs in February — must have their grant awards reinstated within five business days of the March 17 order.

    Rubin wrote that the cuts to the teacher training grant programs are “likely unlawful” under the Administrative Procedure Act.

    The plaintiffs in the case are the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, National Center for Teacher Residencies, and Maryland Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

    The order means that grantees affiliated with the plaintiff organizations can soon “draw down funds without any restrictions,” AACTE said in a Monday statement. 

    “We are thrilled that the court has ruled in favor of preserving funding for TQP, SEED, and TSL grants, which have a transformative impact on our nation’s education system,” said AACTE President and CEO Cheryl Holcomb-McCoy. 

    “I commend the unwavering dedication that led to this decision and remain hopeful that institutions, nonprofits, and partners across America can continue to strengthen our educator workforce, and address critical shortages while ensuring that every child in our nation has access to exceptional educators and a high-quality educational experience.”

    Last week, eight attorneys general had an initial victory in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts with a similar lawsuit over the Education Department’s cuts to millions of dollars in teacher training grants. That lawsuit only mentioned the SEED and TQP grants.

    When announcing the cuts on Feb. 17, the Education Department said the $600 million in withdrawn funds had been allocated to “divisive” teacher training grants. The department did not initially name the specific grants it slashed, but it later confirmed to K-12 Dive that the cuts included SEED and TQP.

    Source link

  • Judge Orders Education Dept. to Restore Teacher Prep Grants

    Judge Orders Education Dept. to Restore Teacher Prep Grants

    A federal judge in Maryland this week ordered the U.S. Department of Education to reinstate numerous grants that support teacher-preparation programs.

    The department canceled the $600 million in grants last month as part of a wider effort to slash federal funding and eliminate programs that promote diversity, equity and inclusion. In response, the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, the National Center for Teacher Residencies and the Maryland Association of Colleges for Teacher Education challenged the cuts, arguing in a lawsuit that the grant terminations were illegal.

    On Monday, U.S District Judge Julie Rubin ordered the department to restore funding for the Supporting Effective Educator Development program, the Teacher Quality Partnership program and the Teacher and School Leader incentive program within five business days. That order comes after a federal judge last week directed the department to reinstate canceled grants in eight states.

    “We are thrilled that the court has ruled in favor of preserving funding for TQP, SEED, and TSL grants, which have a transformative impact on our nation’s education system,” AACTE president and CEO Cheryl Holcomb-McCoy said in a news release.

    The order also blocks the department from terminating any other TQP, SEED or TSL grant awards “in a manner this court has determined is likely unlawful as violative of the Administrative Procedure Act,” which instructs courts to “hold unlawful and set aside final agency actions” deemed “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”

    The judge asked both the department and the plaintiffs to file a status report within seven business days showing compliance with the order.

    Source link

  • Liberty University must face former trans worker’s discrimination claim, judge rules

    Liberty University must face former trans worker’s discrimination claim, judge rules

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

    A worker who was fired by Liberty University for disclosing her transgender status and announcing her intention to transition may proceed with her employment discrimination case against the institution, a Virginia district court judge ruled Feb. 21 (Zinski v. Liberty University). 

    The case involved a worker who was hired in February 2023 as an IT apprentice at the university’s IT help desk. She received positive performance reviews until July of that year, when she emailed Liberty’s HR department, explaining that she was a transgender woman, had been undergoing hormone replacement therapy and would be legally changing her name, according to court documents. An HR representative promised to follow up with her.

    Shortly thereafter, after hearing nothing, the worker reached out again and was scheduled for a meeting later the same day. She was presented with a letter terminating her employment and explaining that her decision to transition violated Liberty’s religious beliefs and its Doctrinal Statement. 

    In response to the worker’s lawsuit, Liberty University argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (among other laws) allow religious employers to discriminate on the basis of religion, contending that the worker’s firing was religion-based rather than sex-based in discriminatory nature. 

    While Judge Norman Moon appreciated that the case presents a “novel question of law in the Fourth Circuit,” he ultimately found current case law didn’t fully or clearly support the university’s argument. 

    “If discharge based upon transgender status is sex discrimination under Title VII generally, it follows that the same should be true for religious employers, who, it has been shown, were not granted an exception from the prohibition against sex discrimination,” Judge Moon said in his order denying the university’s motion to dismiss the case. “They have been entitled to discriminate on the basis of religion but on no other grounds.”

    Judge Moon pointed out that “no source of law … answers the question before us,” but “we find that a decision to the contrary would portend far-reaching and detrimental consequences for our system of civil law and the separation between church and state.”

    “This case — and the law it implicates — points to the delicate balance between two competing and laudable objectives: eradicating discrimination in employment, on the one hand, and affording religious institutions the freedom to cultivate a workforce that conforms to its doctrinal principles, on the other,” Moon wrote. “We find that our holding today — that religious institutions cannot discriminate on the basis of sex, even if motivated by religion — most appropriately maintains this balance.”

    Source link

  • Calif. judge rules adjuncts should be paid for nonclassroom work

    Calif. judge rules adjuncts should be paid for nonclassroom work

    A superior court judge in California ruled last week that adjunct faculty in the Long Beach Community College District should be paid for work they do outside the classroom, including lesson prep, grading and holding office hours, EdSource reported.

    The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed in April 2022 by two part-time professors who argued that they are only paid for time spent teaching in the classroom, and that “failing to compensate adjuncts for out-of-classroom work is a minimum wage violation,” according to the decision by Judge Stuart Rice.

    Rice concurred, noting “a myriad of problems” with the district’s argument that minimum wage rules don’t apply, EdSource reported.

    Still, Rice stayed the decision pending further proceedings, so it doesn’t go into effect immediately. A similar lawsuit is under way in Sacramento County, brought by adjuncts against 22 community college districts, as well as the state community college system and its Board of Governors.

    Adjunct professor John Martin, who chairs the California Part-time Faculty Association and is a plaintiff in the Sacramento case, celebrated the Long Beach ruling.

    “It’s spot-on with what we have been saying,” he told EdSource. “We’re not getting paid for outside [the classroom] work. This has been a long time coming.”

    Source link

  • Federal judge bars DOGE from accessing student data

    Federal judge bars DOGE from accessing student data

    A federal judge temporarily barred Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency from accessing sensitive student data on Monday, after the American Federation of Teachers sued over privacy concerns. 

    The judge, Deborah Boardman of the District Court of Maryland, said the federal government had not provided convincing evidence that DOGE needed the information to achieve its goals. Last week, in a separate case brought by the University of California Student Association against the Education Department, a different judge declined to bar DOGE from accessing student data, saying the plaintiffs hadn’t shown any harm done. But Boardman, a Biden appointee, argued that DOGE staff being given access was enough to merit the injunction. 

    Education Department staff and student advocates raised concerns about DOGE employees’ access to student loan and financial aid data, which includes troves of uniquely sensitive, personally identifiable information. The injunction prevents the office from executing what Musk has referred to as an “audit” of the student loan system for at least two weeks while the lawsuit is ongoing, as well as from accessing financial aid data.

    “We brought this case to uphold people’s privacy, because when people give their financial and other personal information to the federal government—namely to secure financial aid for their kids to go to college, or to get a student loan—they expect that data to be protected,” AFT president Randi Weingarten wrote in a statement. 

    The court-ordered stoppage is the latest in a string of injunctions issued against Musk and the Trump administration in recent weeks, as lawsuits pile up against the administration’s attempts to swiftly upend the federal bureaucracy. On Friday, a federal judge blocked Trump from enforcing large parts of his executive order against diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

    Source link