Tag: judges

  • Federal judges deal major blow to Education Department’s anti-DEI guidance

    Federal judges deal major blow to Education Department’s anti-DEI guidance

    Two federal judges issued separate rulings Thursday that together dealt a major blow to the Trump administration’s recent guidance threatening to strip federal funding from colleges and K-12 schools that consider race in any of their policies, including scholarships and housing. 

    U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher ruled that the U.S. Department of Education did not follow proper procedures when issuing the Feb. 14 letter and postponed its effective date nationwide while the legal challenge against the guidance plays out. 

    The order came in response to a lawsuit from the American Federation of Teachers and other groups, which alleged that the guidance “radically upends” federal antidiscrimination law and is too vague for colleges and K-12 school officials to understand what conduct is prohibited. 

    The guidance interprets the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling against race-conscious college admissions to extend to every aspect of education, including financial aid, administrative support and graduation ceremonies. 

    According to AFT, the letter also implied that a wide variety of “core instruction, activities, and programs” used in teaching students — from diversity initiatives to instruction on systemic racism — could now be considered illegal discrimination. 

    The Feb. 14 letter asserted that colleges and K-12 schools had “toxically indoctrinated students with the false premise that the United States is built upon ‘systemic and structural racism’ and advanced discriminatory policies and practices.” 

    The Education Department appeared to walk back some of the strictest aspects of its guidance in a March Q&A document, but Gallagher wrote that the Q&A still lacked “sufficient clarity to override the express terms of the [Feb. 14] Letter.”

    Gallagher, a federal distict judge in Maryland, said the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their arguments that the letter exceeds the Education Department’s authority by attempting to exercise control over curriculum. 

    “The government cannot proclaim entire categories of classroom content discriminatory to side-step the bounds of its statutory authority,” Gallagher wrote. 

    AFT Maryland President Kenya Campbell hailed the court’s order on Thursday. 

    “This preliminary injunction pauses the chaos caused by targeting and attacking vital communities and temporarily protects the critical funding schools, from our K-12 schools to our higher education institutions, rely on,” Campbell said. 

    The order came the same day as another federal judge made a similar ruling in a separate case brought against the Feb. 14 guidance. 

    The National Education Association, its New Hampshire affiliate and the Center for Black Educator Development sued the Education Department in early March, arguing the guidance undermines the free speech rights of educators. 

    Although the plaintiffs had sought a nationwide injunction, federal Judge Landya McCafferty, ruling for New Hampshire district court,  only blocked enforcement of the guidance for federally funded colleges and schools that employ or contract with the plaintiffs’ members. NEA alone has about 3 million members, including higher education workers.

    Source link

  • FIRE statement on immigration judge’s ruling that deportation of Mahmoud Khalil can proceed

    FIRE statement on immigration judge’s ruling that deportation of Mahmoud Khalil can proceed

    This afternoon, an immigration judge in Louisiana ruled that Mahmoud Khalil’s deportation could proceed under immigration law. But the fight over the constitutionality of that law continues.

    The Immigration and Nationality Act gives the secretary of state nearly unchecked authority to deport a legal permanent resident on nothing more than his whim if the secretary believes the person poses “serious adverse foreign policy consequences.” 

    Below is FIRE’s statement, attributable to Legal Director Will Creeley:

    Can expressing an opinion that the government doesn’t like justify a green card holder’s arrest, detention, and deportation? That’s what this case comes down to — and it’s a question the courts must answer. The government is holding up a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that purports to say “yes.” But the principles enshrined in the First Amendment say “no.”

    Allowing a single government official sweeping and nearly unchecked power to pick and choose individuals to deport based on beliefs alone, without alleging a single crime, crosses a line that should never be crossed in a free society. 

    The only “crime” the government has offered was that Mahmoud Khalil expressed a disfavored political opinion. If that’s a crime in America, every single one of us is guilty.

    Source link

  • Federal Judges Block Title IX Rule in 10 States – CUPA-HR

    Federal Judges Block Title IX Rule in 10 States – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | June 17, 2024

    Updates:
    On June 17, a federal judge in the Eastern District Court of Kentucky issued a second preliminary injunction against the Title IX rule, blocking the final rule from taking effect on August 1 in Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana, Ohio and West Virginia.

    On June 24, the Biden administration filed a notice of appeal for the preliminary injunction granted in the Western District Court of Louisiana to block the Title IX final rule from going into effect on August 1, 2024. The appeal will be filed in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The preliminary injunction remains in effect until the 5th Circuit Court issues a decision. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates on this appeal as well as the status of the second preliminary injunction granted in the Eastern District Court of Kentucky.

    On July 2, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court of Kansas issued a third preliminary injunction to block the Biden administration’s Title IX rule from taking effect on August 1. The preliminary injunction applies to four states: Alaska, Kansas, Utah and Wyoming. The preliminary injunction also applies to schools where members of the Young America’s Foundation, Female Athletes United, and Moms for Liberty attend, even if the state in which the school is located is not challenging the rule or is not included in another preliminary injunction. The Title IX rule is now blocked from being enforced beginning on August 1 in a total of 14 states, as well as over 360 institutions in 24 states, Washington D.C., and Puerto Rico that are not suing the Biden administration over the Title IX rule.

    On July 11, Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives passed a Congressional Review Act resolution to block the Department of Education from implementing and enforcing its Title IX final rule. The vote is largely symbolic as the Democrat-controlled Senate is unlikely to take up the measure and President Biden would veto the resolution if it ended up on his desk.

    On July 11, a federal judge in the Northern District Court of Texas granted a fourth preliminary injunction to block the Title IX final rule from taking effect on August 1 in the state of Texas. The Title IX final rule is now blocked from taking effect in 15 states.

    On July 24, a federal judge from the Eastern District Court of Missouri issued another preliminary injunction to block the Title IX rule from taking effect in six more states. The states included in this decision were Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The Title IX final rule is now blocked from taking effect on August 1 in a total of 21 states.

    On July 31, a federal judge in the Western District Court of Oklahoma granted a preliminary injunction to block the Title IX final rule from taking effect on August 1. Additionally, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a preliminary injunction in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, overturning a lower court’s previous decision to deny the preliminary injunction in those states. There are 26 states in which the Title IX rule is now blocked from taking effect on August 1.

    On June 13, a federal judge in the Western District Court of Louisiana issued a preliminary injunction on the Department of Education (ED)’s recent Title IX final rule. The order blocks the final rule from taking effect on August 1 in Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana and Idaho until a final decision has been issued by the judge on a lawsuit challenging the validity of the final rule.

    ED’s Final Rule and Subsequent Lawsuits

    In April, ED released its highly anticipated final rule to amend the Title IX regulations. Notably, the final rule expands protections against sex-based discrimination to cover sexual orientation, gender identity, and pregnancy or related conditions. Soon after it was published, several lawsuits were filed by states and advocacy groups challenging ED’s decision to expand Title IX protections to include gender identity and sexual orientation. 

    Judge’s Order

    In the order to grant a preliminary injunction, the federal judge asserted that the Title IX rulemaking is “contrary to law” and “exceeds statutory authority,” especially with the expanded protections for transgender students. Specifically, the judge explained that Congress intended to protect biological women from discrimination when enacting Title IX, and that “enacting the changes in the final rule would subvert the original purpose of Title IX.”

    As a result, ED is blocked from enforcing the final rule in the four states listed in the order, and the final rule will not take effect on August 1 in those four states until further orders are issued by the court.* The judge will now consider the lawsuit challenging the final rule and decide to either uphold or strike down the rule. A final decision may take months or a year or more to be released, as any decision is likely to be appealed to a higher court. In the meantime, CUPA-HR encourages HR leaders in the states impacted by this preliminary to work with their institution’s general counsel on best practices for navigating Title IX compliance.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of additional updates on the legal challenges against the Title IX final rule.

    * Over two dozen states have joined lawsuits challenging the Title IX final rule. Though the order in this blog post applies only to Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana and Idaho, decisions for the additional lawsuits could result in similar injunctions for other states.



    Source link