|
The lawsuit targets Hegseth, Gabbard, Ratcliffe, Bessent, Rubio for violating federal records laws by using messaging app Signal for high-level national security deliberations, and seeks to recover unlawfully deleted messages and prevent further destruction.  Following bombshell reporting that top Trump administration officials used the auto-deleting messaging app Signal to coordinate high-level, allegedly classified war operations, nonpartisan watchdog American Oversight filed a lawsuit against those officials for violations of the Federal Records Act and Administrative Procedure Act. The lawsuit seeks to prevent further unlawful destruction of federal records and to compel the recovery of any records created through their unauthorized use of Signal. Those named in the suit include Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and Secretary of State and acting Archivist Marco Rubio. Yesterday, the Atlantic reported that the top national security officials named above, as well as Vice President J.D. Vance and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, discussed war operations in a private Signal group chat that included Jeffrey Goldberg, the Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, who appears to have been added by mistake. According to Goldberg, messages in the group chat were set to disappear after a certain number of days. American Oversight’s lawsuit underscores the serious risks to democratic accountability when public officials conduct government business on secretive, untraceable platforms — particularly when those platforms are designed to erase records. “This reported disclosure of sensitive military information in a Signal group chat that included a journalist is a five-alarm fire for government accountability and potentially a crime,” said American Oversight Interim Executive Director Chioma Chukwu. “War planning doesn’t belong in emoji-laden disappearing group chats. It belongs in secure facilities designed to safeguard national interests — something any responsible government official should have known. Our lawsuit seeks to ensure these federal records are preserved and recovered. The American people deserve answers and we won’t stop until we get them.” The Federal Records Act requires federal officials to preserve communications related to official government business. Generally, agencies ensure retention of messages sent on apps like Signal by setting policies requiring officials and personnel to forward them to official systems for proper archival or take other steps to preserve their content. Since President Trump took office, American Oversight has filed numerous lawsuits and launched investigations into Trump’s mass firing of independent inspectors general, DOGE’s secretive efforts to invade agencies, the Trump administration’s quid pro quo campaign with New York City Mayor Eric Adams, and its directive to USAID staff to shred and burn government records. American Oversight will continue to hold Trump and his allies accountable by shining a light on the administration’s actions. American Oversight also played a key role in holding the Trump administration accountable during the president’s first term. Using public records backed by aggressive litigation, American Oversight uncovered extensive evidence of corruption, conflicts of interest, and abuses of power throughout the administration.
0 Comments
Texas lawmakers advance bill that makes it a crime for teachers to assign "Catcher in the Rye"3/26/2025  Lawmakers in Texas are seeking to impose harsh criminal penalties on school librarians and teachers who provide award-winning works of literature to students. Identical bills in the Texas Senate and House would make it a crime for librarians and teachers to provide books or learning materials that contain sexually explicit content, punishable by up to 10 years behind bars — whether or not a book has educational or literary merit.
Currently, if someone is charged with providing sexually explicit content to a child, they can argue that the content was provided in pursuit of a scientific, educational, or governmental purpose. SB 412 and HB 267 would remove this affirmative defense. This defense exists because, while some people provide explicit content to children to harm them, books that include sexual content have long been a valuable component of secondary education. Many classic works of literature, including "The Odyssey," "Catcher in the Rye," "Brave New World," and "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest," have sexually explicit scenes. Under SB 412, which the Texas Senate voted to advance last week and now awaits approval by the House, teachers and librarians would no longer be able to argue that sexually explicit content can serve an educational purpose. Only law enforcement officials and judges would be exempted under the new law. SB 412 also leaves in place an exception if the adult providing the sexually explicit content is married to the child, which is legal in Texas, with a judge’s approval, if the child is at least 16 years old. In the last few years, Texas teachers and librarians have faced an onslaught of criticism from conservative activists and lawmakers for offering well-regarded works of literature to students. Books that have come under fire in Texas include Toni Morrison’s “The Bluest Eye,” “The Handmaid’s Tale” by Margaret Atwood, and “The Color Purple” by Alice Walker. In December, one district briefly restricted access to the Bible in an attempt to comply with a book-banning bill passed in 2023. Some activists have even targeted picture books about gender-identity or children with two parents of the same gender, saying such books are causing harm to young children. We started a new publication, Musk Watch. NPR covered our launch HERE. It features accountability journalism focused on one of the most powerful humans in history. It is free to sign up, so we hope you’ll give it a try and let us know what you think. Remaking Texas education Senator Mayes Middleton (R-Galveston), the primary sponsor of SB 412, has sponsored several other bills during Texas’ current legislative session to ban materials from schools and libraries that don't conform to his right-wing Christian ideology and aim to infuse religion into the classroom. In addition to SB 412, five other bills sponsored by Middleton passed the Texas Senate last week. SB 11 allows school districts to allocate time each day for teachers and students to pray or read from religious texts, including the Bible. SB 10 requires all classrooms to display a copy of the Ten Commandments. SB 13 overhauls the process by which books are selected for school libraries. Instead of trained librarians, school boards would have the final say over which books are allowed on the shelves of school libraries. School districts would also be required to form library advisory boards of parents and other community members to recommend whether a book should be added or removed from a school’s collection. Finally, the bill places a blanket ban on books that have “indecent content or profane content.” SB 18 would defund any libraries that host children’s drag queen story hours, a frequent target of conservative activists and lawmakers in Texas and other states. SB 12 bans Texas schools from teaching about gender identity and sexual orientation; developing policies or training about diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); and considering diversity in hiring decisions. One lawmaker said this bill would prevent taxpayer money from being spent to advance “political activism and political agendas.” Other states consider harsh penalties for teachers and librarians Multiple states, including Indiana and Arkansas, have already passed laws that make educators or librarians vulnerable to harsh penalties, or even jail time, for providing “obscene” materials to minors, the Washington Post reported. In December, a federal judge struck down parts of an Arkansas law that would have "established a criminal misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in prison, for librarians and booksellers who distribute ‘harmful’ material to a minor,” ruling that “elements of the law [were] unconstitutional." A 2024 analysis by the Associated Press found that in the first four months of last year, “lawmakers in more than 15 states… introduced bills to impose harsh penalties on libraries or librarians.” Legislators in multiple states, including Alabama, Georgia, and Arizona, have already introduced similar legislation this year. In Alabama, HB 4 would change current criminal obscenity laws to include “public libraries, public school libraries, and their employees or agents in certain circumstances.” The bill, which has 50 cosponsors, gives educators and librarians “15 business days [after receiving a valid complaint] for staff to move material to an age-restricted section; remove material; cease conduct; or make an official determination that the material or conduct does not violate the law.” Complaints can be sent by any resident in the same county as the public library or a parent or guardian of a child enrolled in the school. If the person who files the complaint does not receive notice of action within 25 days, the material can be taken to law enforcement. The bill excludes college and university libraries and librarians. In Georgia, SB 74 would “repeal an exemption for libraries and librarians,” and make them vulnerable to “a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature” if they knowingly sell or distribute “harmful materials to minors.” The bill includes an exception for “librarians who make good faith attempts to identify and remove material harmful to minors.” The legislation was passed by the state Senate earlier this month, and has now moved to the House. Arizona SB 1090 states that “an employee or independent contractor of a public library in this state may not refer an unemancipated minor [or facilitate access for an unemancipated minor] to any sexually explicit material in any manner.” The legislation states that an employee of a public library “who acting with criminal negligence violates this section is guilty of a class 5 felony.” The bill passed a Senate committee in January, but, even if it passes the state legislature, it is unlikely that it will be signed into law by Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs.  "The [Gun Control Act] reaches, and permits ATF to regulate, at least some 'partially complete' frames or receivers," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in a 7-2 ruling upholding a Biden-era regulation targeting internet weapon parts kits. The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the federal government's efforts to combat a flood of untraceable "ghost guns" assembled from internet-ordered firearm kits, rejecting arguments that the assemble-yourself firearms are not subject to a federal gun control law. In a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Supreme Court overturned an appeals court ruling that struck down down a 2022 rule subjecting the sale of firearms kits to the same tracking and background checks as conventional guns. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found the rule unlawful on the grounds that the 1968 Gun Control Act covers only ready-made firearms—or a finished "frame or receiver" of such a weapon—not unassembled parts kits. Gorsuch's opinion for the court rejected that narrow reading of the law and of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' statutory authority. "The GCA reaches, and permits ATF to regulate, at least some 'partially complete' frames or receivers," he wrote, adding that gun rights advocates had failed to prove that the bureau's regulation was facially inconsistent with the law. The court's decision spurred separate dissents from Justices Samuel Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas. "The Court decides this case on a ground that was not raised or decided below and that was not the focus of the briefing or argument in this Court," Alito wrote, referring to the "extreme" example Gorsuch used to show how a nearly finished receiver should be subject to the Gun Control Act. Thomas, meanwhile, objected to the court's reading of the Gun Control Act as covering partially complete frames or receivers. "The statutory terms 'frame' and 'receiver' do not cover the unfinished frames and receivers contained in weapon-parts kits, and weapon-parts kits themselves do not meet the statutory definition of 'firearm,'" Thomas wrote. "That should end the case." Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote concurring opinions. Sotomayor wrote that "some manufacturers have sought to circumvent the Act's requirements by selling easy-to-assemble firearm kits and frames, which they claim fall outside the statute's scope." But "ATF's rule simply confirms what was already clear: The Gun Control Act does not tolerate such evasion," she added. Kavanaugh wrote that the Gun Control Act penalizes only those who "willfully" violate the law's licensing, recordkeeping or serialization requirements. "Therefore, with respect to ATF's rule, the 'willfulness' requirement should help prevent the Government from unfairly penalizing an individual who is not aware that his conduct violates the law," Kavanaugh wrote. Jackson wrote that the dispositive issue is whether the ATF exceeded its statutory authority with the rule, which she added the agency did not. "Proper excess-of-authority review must focus on actual statutory boundaries, not on whether the agency's discretionary choices overlap precisely with what we, as unelected judges, would have done if we were standing in the agency's shoes," Jackson wrote. "And where, as here, the statute's boundaries do not foreclose the agency's action, the excess-of-authority claim should meet its end." Under the Biden-era rule from the ATF, online firearm kit makers are subject to the same requirements as other gun sellers: namely, they must have a federal license, conduct background checks for customers, maintain sales records, and include serial numbers on their products. The ATF has said the rule is necessary to address an "explosion" of crimes using these unserialized weapons. Between 2016 and 2021, the government says it submitted more than 45,000 ghost guns to ATF for tracing, with a success rate of less than 1%. The challenge to the rule came from Jennifer VanDerStok, Michael Andren and a group of weapons parts manufacturers, one of whom marketed a kit for a Glock-variant semiautomatic pistol that could be built in about 20 minutes, according to the government. The gun owners and manufacturers said the law makes clear that only "functional" frames or receivers should be regulated as such. They stated that the Gun Control Act applies to items that can "readily be converted" to firearms, but does not include such expansive language for the "frame or receiver" of a firearm. The court's decision comes less than a year after the Supreme Court held that the ATF did, in fact, exceed its statutory authority in banning the sale of bump stocks, a type of firearm accessory that uses the recoil of a weapon to simulate automatic fire. That rule was adopted by the ATF during the first Trump administration in response to the deadly mass shooting at a Las Vegas music concert. The court signaled that it was more receptive to the agency's "ghost gun" rule during oral arguments in October, with several conservative justices appearing sympathetic to the government—a stark contrast to the grilling the government's lawyer received in the bump stock case the previous term. Wednesday's decision came in Bondi v. Vanderstok, No. 23-852.  Chief Justice John Roberts criticized a call by President Donald Trump for the impeachment of a federal trial judge who temporarily barred the federal government from deporting noncitizens pursuant to an executive order published on Saturday.
The rare public statement was the latest development in a fast-moving battle over Trump’s efforts to deport noncitizens alleged to be members of a Venezuelan gang pursuant to an eighteenth-century law that had been invoked only three previous times in the country’s history. Trump’s executive order relied on the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 law that allows the president to detain or deport citizens of an enemy nation without a hearing or other judicial review when Congress has declared war or when an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” occurs. Trump found that Tren de Aragua “is perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States.” Based on that conclusion, he indicated that “all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies.” On Saturday, James Boasberg – the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia – prohibited the federal government from deporting any noncitizens for 14 days pursuant to the executive order published earlier in the day. Boasberg also ordered the Trump administration to turn around any flights that had already taken off. Despite Boasberg’s order, news outlets – including The New York Times – reported that the Trump administration had deported more than 200 noncitizens to El Salvador on Saturday night and Sunday morning. None of the planes carrying those noncitizens landed in El Salvador before Boasberg issued his written order. Boasberg held another hearing on March 17 on whether the Trump administration had violated his March 15 order. Citing “national security concerns,” a lawyer for the Department of Justice declined to answer the judge’s questions, insisting only that the government had not violated the written order. In a post on Truth Social on Tuesday morning, Trump contended that Boasberg should be impeached. In a statement released by the Supreme Court’s Public Information Office on Tuesday, Roberts indicated that “[f]or more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.” Last year, Roberts handed Trump a significant victory in Trump v. United States, which bolstered the power of the presidency and established that the president is generally immune from criminal prosecution for official acts. But Tuesday’s statement was not Roberts’s first rebuke of Trump. In 2018, after Trump described a federal district judge who had ruled against his administration’s asylum policy as an “Obama judge,” Roberts pushed back. “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts told the Associated Press.  In his first month in office, President Trump has ordered a radical set of changes to the federal government. Some are within the traditionally understood scope of a president’s power, but many appear to purposely violate statutes, setting up tests of whether limits imposed by Congress on the White House are constitutional.
The bounds of presidential power can be hazy, and the Republican-appointed supermajority on the Supreme Court could expand them. Still, so many of Mr. Trump’s actions have defied apparent legal limits that some scholars say the country is approaching a constitutional crisis. Here are 38 of the Trump administration’s biggest moves so far. Reading the list ⚠️ Actions that appear to conflict with specific statutes or to violate the Constitution. 🚫 Actions that have been temporarily blocked by a judge, either partly or completely. Actions without these symbols appear more likely to fall within mainstream understandings of presidential power, but may still be unusual or subject to legal challenges. Staffing, firings and DOGE
Froze federal hiring
Spending ]
Most U.S. foreign aid
Foreign affairs
Immigration and border policy
Judge orders Mayor Eric Adams, DOJ lawyers to appear in court to explain case dismissal request2/18/2025 
A federal judge ordered embattled New York Mayor Eric Adams, his attorneys, and Department of Justice prosecutors to appear in court Wednesday afternoon to explain the DOJ's controversial request to dismiss criminal corruption charges against Adams. Manhattan U.S. District Judge Dale Ho's order Tuesday suggests that he will not rubber stamp the highly unusual dismissal request, which has sparked concerns that the DOJ struck a deal with Adams to toss the case in exchange for the Democratic mayor's cooperation with President Donald Trump's immigration orders. Seven top DOJ prosecutors — including ones directly involved in Adams' case — last week resigned in protest of the department's bid to toss out the case. Ho's order quotes an appeals court case that says judges "should be satisfied that the reasons for the proposed dismissal are substantial." "The parties shall be prepared to address, [among other things], the reasons for the Government's motion, the scope and effect of Mayor Adams's 'consent in writing,'" Ho wrote. The order was issued a day after three former U.S. Attorneys for Manhattan, New Jersey, and Connecticut asked him to "conduct a factual inquiry" into the dismissal request, citing "these extraordinary events" last week. Those events "raise serious questions about the appropriateness of the government's dismissal request," the letter said. In another letter Monday, former Manhattan federal prosecutor Nathaniel Akerman, who is now an attorney for the advocacy group Common Cause, urged Ho to deny the motion to dismiss, saying it was motivated by a "corrupt quid pro quo" between Adams and the DOJ. "The Court may also consider appointing an independent special prosecutor to continue the prosecution of Mr. Adams in this Court," Akerman wrote. Meanwhile Tuesday, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul is set to meet with people she has called "key leaders" to discuss "a path forward" for New York City after four of Adams' deputy mayors resigned on the heels of the DOJ dismissal request. Hochul's announcement of that meeting suggested that she is strongly considering exercising her constitutional authority to remove the mayor from office. Top DOJ lawyers on Friday asked Ho to toss the case after the acting Manhattan U.S. Attorney and six other prosecutors resigned rather than comply with an order to file that request. Danielle Sassoon, the former acting U.S. Attorney, told U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi in a letter that the DOJ's dismissal request — which preserves the right to refile charges against Adams instead of dismissing the case "with prejudice" — creates "obvious ethical problems." She said Adams is being implicitly threatened with future prosecution if he does not comply with Trump's demand that Adams and other local officials cooperate with federal authorities in enforcing immigration laws. The DOJ filed its dismissal motion a day after White House border czar Tom Homan met with Adams, who agreed to give federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents access to the city's massive jail complex on Rikers Island. That motion, which deputy Attorney General Emil Bove signed, says Bove concluded that continuing to prosecute Adams would "interfere with the defendant's ability to govern in New York City, which poses unacceptable threats to public safety, national security, and related federal immigration initiatives and policies." The court filing also said Bove concluded the dismissal was necessary "because of the appearances of impropriety and risks of interference" with New York's primary and mayoral elections this year. Adams, who is charged with conspiracy, wire fraud, bribery and solicitation of a contribution by a foreign national, had been scheduled to go on trial in late April — less than six months before November's mayoral election. Adams' lawyer Alex Spiro, in a letter to Ho filed Tuesday, disputed the contention by Sassoon and other prosecutors that the DOJ agreed to a quid pro quo with Adams to obtain his compliance on immigration enforcement in exchange for dismissing the case. "There was no quid pro quo," Spiro wrote. "Period." "We never offered anything to the Department, or anyone else, for the dismissal. And neither the Department, nor anyone else, ever asked anything of us for the dismissal," Spiro said. "We told the Department that ending the case would lift a legal and practical burden that impeded Mayor Adams in his official duties." Homan during a joint televised interview with Adams on Fox News on Friday said that if the mayor "doesn't come through" on an agreement to cooperate with ICE officials in immigration policies "I'll be back in New York City, and we won't be sitting on a couch." "I'll be in his office, up his butt, saying, 'Where the hell is the agreement we came to?'" Homan said. Ho, in his order setting Wednesday's hearing, noted that federal criminal procedure rules allow prosecutors to dismiss a criminal case "with leave of court." Ho also noted that a 2022 federal appeals court ruling says the executive branch of government "remains the absolute judge of whether a prosecution should be initiated and presumptively the best judge of whether a pending prosecution should be terminated." But the same appellate ruling suggests that a dismissal request can be blocked if it is "clearly contrary to manifest public interest." The judge ordered Adams' lawyers by 5 p.m. Tuesday to file the mayor's written consent to the dismissal request by the DOJ. Spiro soon after filed that document. Hochul, in a statement Monday announcing her meeting with political leaders about Adams' future, said, "In the 235 years of New York State history, these powers have never been utilized to remove a duly-elected mayor; overturning the will of the voters is a serious step that should not be taken lightly." "That said, the alleged conduct at City Hall that has been reported over the past two weeks is troubling and cannot be ignored," Hochul said.  The governments of Pacific Islands nations appear concerned over a document which suggests at least 561 former citizens of Fiji, Tonga and Samoa are at criminal risk of deportation from the US under returning President Donald Trump's administration. Immigration raids across the nation are set to affect 1.4 million foreign residents living in the US, who have overstayed their visas or are non-citizens with criminal histories. President Trump is holding firm to his campaign promise of conducting arguably ever the biggest mass deportations for what is termed undocumented immigrants. The revelation comes after what appeared to be a document compiled by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal Operations was released to limited media showing a list that included 353 Fijian nationals, 151 Tongans and 57 Samoans. The document said the deportees were people with removable non-citizen status, who are being held in Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention. One of the first news sources to publicize the document MSN News, said one of its American-based correspondents had sighted the list that was entitled: 'Noncitizens on the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement Non-Detained Docket with Final Orders of Removal by Country of Citizenship'. The document also includes five deportees from Papua New Guinea, three from the Solomon Islands and Kiribati, two from French Polynesia and one each from Tuvalu and Vanuatu does not specify the categories or the types of deportees involved. Other reports in US media added the arrests by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement authorities appear to remain along the lines of "routine operations" and not part of a larger-scale raid in any one place. President Trump's designated border "czar", Tom Homan, told Fox News on Wednesday the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducted hundreds of arrests so far across the nation. The arrested unauthorized immigrants are set to be placed on a number of deportation flights flown out on US military aircrafts. Tonga is particularly concerned that a potential influx of criminals deported may worsen the kingdom's struggle against sophisticated drug crime-related activities. Many sitting in power believe these issues are already being exacerbated by experienced deported criminals, who are already in the country. It was estimated around 30 convicted criminals have been deported to Tonga every year since 2010. Reports indicate Malapo's Hu'atolitoli Prison and its psychiatric facility are facing an increasing issue of overcrowding and that Tonga would not be able to cope with more former residents. Suggestions have been made the country could require assistance from third parties such as New Zealand or even Australia. Many of the patients being treated in the psychiatric facility have been victims of illicit drug use. One Tongan political commentator, Melino Maka, said that among the island country of little more than 100,000 residents, President Trump's promise is set to "unleash a wave of deportees that could drown Tonga and other Pacific nations in crisis". Though some Tongan returnees will be accepted back into families and their societies, others are predicted to struggle. A large number Fijian detainees left the country when they were very young, one report says, and often have a limited understanding of the Fijian language and its local culture. Prominent Fijian lawyer Dorsami Naidu said President Trump's threats have invoked fear. "We've had lots of people, who have served prison sentences in America, get sent back to Fiji, where they introduce different kinds of criminal activities that they are well-groomed in," Mr Naidu said. Senior Fijian minister Pio Tikoduadua said in terms of nationals being repatriated, it would be a matter in which Foreign Affairs will take the lead. Fiji and its partner law agencies do share information and they are aware of Fijian citizens – especially those who were being deported – have engaged in any illicit acts. "If someone has already registered in the US justice system as a drug offender, we will know this person," Mr. Tikoduadua said. "We have networks that share information, but it will be nice if the Americans tell us if they are putting them on the plane to come here." Research fellow, Henrietta McNeill, at the Australian National University in Canberra, said there are dire warnings ahead of damage to many of the traditional ways of life throughout the islands. "My research shows that some deported Pacific islanders with criminal histories may turn 'back to what they know' in the absence of support, which at times means involvement in the drug trade if there are no other means of gainful employment," MS McNeill said.  A federal judge blocked President Donald Trump’s effort to slash funding for National Institutes of Health research programs at universities and medical systems that threatened a key source of funding and jobs in Georgia for critical research on health discoveries such as cancer and basic science. The judge’s ruling came after a lawsuit filed by 22 mostly Democratic-led states challenged Trump’s plan to cut perhaps $4 billion in costs at the federal program, the nation’s bedrock financier of scientific research. “Nobody denies that Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s research is critically important,” said Carr spokeswoman Kara Murray. “By cutting indirect costs, there will be even more funds available for legitimate medical research.” The threatened cuts sparked chaos at research institutions across the state and nation, and led to impassioned calls from scientific leaders urging Trump’s administration to rethink the cost-cutting measures. Business boosters promoted a study that showed the funding that research institutions and businesses across Georgia receives equals more than $2 billion annually in economic impact and is responsible for nearly 12,000 jobs in the state. Caylee Noggle, chief of the Georgia Hospital Association, said the proposed cuts come as Georgia was in the midst of growing, not shrinking, programs for high-level medical education. Lawmakers are pouring state dollars into a new medical school at the University of Georgia and a new dental school at Georgia Southern University. “Any potential funding cut only takes us further backwards and will ultimately slow down or hinder access to groundbreaking and life-saving treatments for Georgians,” she said, adding that her industry broadly supports Trump’s mission to make government more efficient. “We need to be careful and look at the significance of the cuts we’re making.” NIH funding primarily supports university laboratories, where scientists and doctors who secure grants may exclusively work in labs or work directly with hospitals and clinics on groundbreaking trials. At Emory University, NIH funding in the last fiscal year totaled $488 million. The university told employees it expected funding to decrease $140 million annually if the cuts went through. Companies and private foundations also fund scientific research, but experts say NIH funding is the bedrock of U.S. dominance in scientific research. Emory called the overhead spending “essential to our research enterprise,” emphasizing that without laboratory infrastructure scientists couldn’t achieve medical breakthroughs. Such “indirect” spending can include laboratory space, research security, handling of bio waste, information technology, equipment and some personnel. Other large-scale recipients in Georgia include the University of Georgia at $76 million, Augusta University at $73 million and Georgia Tech at $46 million. U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley’s initial ruling only covered the 22 mostly Democratic-led states that brought the challenge. The judge later expanded the pause on the NIH cost-cutting effort nationwide “until further order” issued by the court. The judge set a Feb. 21 hearing on the challenges. Two other swing states that Trump captured in November — Michigan and North Carolina — did join the lawsuit. But both states have Democratic attorneys general, easing their political decisions. A group of universities filed a separate lawsuit on Monday that also sought emergency help from the courts, warning the cutbacks could deal irreparable damage to lifesaving research and threaten the lives of patients.  Judges on the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals have once again rejected arguments that cannabis consumers can be barred federally owning firearms. On Wednesday, the Court decided in US v Connelly that Americans’ 2nd Amendment rights cannot be infringed solely based upon one’s prior substance use. In its opinion, judges wrote: “[T]here is no historical justification for disarming citizens of sound mind [and] there is no historical justification for disarming a sober citizen not presently under an impairing influence. … Marijuana user or not, [the defendant] is a member of our political community and thus has a presumptive right to bear arms. By infringing on that right, 922(g)(3) contradicts the Second Amendment’s plain text.” Throughout its opinion, the Court acknowledged that no historical precedent exists for stripping alcoholics of their 2nd Amendment rights. It concluded: “The government provides no meaningful response to the fact that neither Congress nor the states disarmed alcoholics, the group most closely analogous to marijuana users in the 18th and 19th centuries. … Our history and tradition may support some limits on a presently intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon, … but they do not support disarming a sober person based solely on past substance usage.” The ruling marks the second time in recent years that judges on the 5th Circuit have held that federal statutes should not be applied so broadly that it criminalizes all gun owners with a history of marijuana use. In a 2023 opinion, judges similarly decided neither “history [nor] tradition … justify disarming a sober citizen based exclusively on his past drug usage.” NORML’s Legal Committee filed an amicus (aka friend of the court) brief in that case calling on the court to find the ban unconstitutional. District Court judges in Oklahoma and Texas have recently issued similar opinions. Commenting on the rulings, NORML’s Deputy Director Paul Armentano said: “Neither past nor current cannabis use should automatically preclude someone from legal protections explicitly provided by the US Constitution.” However, he cautioned that these rulings are not universally applicable or binding nationwide. “Either the Supreme Court or Congress need to ultimately resolve this issue so that responsible cannabis consumers are no longer threatened with federal prison terms simply for exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.” A separate legal challenge to the federal government’s ban, initially brought by former Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried (who now serves as a member of NORML’s Board of Directors) and several medical cannabis patients, remains pending in the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Members of NORML’s Legal Committee have also filed an amicus brief in that case. U.S. District Chief Judge John McConnell Jr. of Rhode Island ordered federal agencies to restore funding that continues to be frozen.  A federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to thaw any remnants of a grant-funding freeze, finding that federal agencies have violated the court's "clear and unambiguous" temporary restraining order. U.S. District Chief Judge John McConnell Jr. of the District of Rhode Island granted an emergency enforcement order sought Feb. 7 by attorneys general from 22 states and the District of Columbia. The attorneys general had submitted evidence that, despite the restraining order McConnell issued last month, federal agencies are still withholding funds from certain grant recipients. "The Defendants now plea that they are just trying to root out fraud," McConnell wrote. "But the freezes in effect now were a result of the broad categorical order, not a specific finding of possible fraud. The broad categorical and sweeping freeze of federal funds is, as the Court found, likely unconstitutional and has caused and continues to cause irreparable harm to a vast portion of this country. These pauses in funding violate the plain text of the TRO." McConnell said agencies can petition for targeted relief from the TRO if they can show they have specific legal authority to pause funding. But his order Monday also quoted from the 1975 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Maness v. Meyers: "Persons who make private determinations of the law and refuse to obey an order generally risk criminal contempt even if the order is ultimately ruled incorrect." McConnell ordered federal agencies to "immediately restore withheld funds, including those federal funds appropriated in the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Improvement and Jobs Act," two funding sources the plaintiff-states cited as still frozen in their motion for emergency enforcement. Three weeks into the Trump administration, Democratic attorneys general have now secured court orders temporarily blocking the president's executive actions on federal funding and birthright citizenship. Early Saturday, U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York granted 19 state attorneys general's motion for a temporary restraining order blocking Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency from accessing U.S. Treasury Department payment systems. "In every case we’ve filed to date, state attorneys general have successfully restrained the president’s abuse of executive power—and we will continue to hold him accountable; our democratic institutions depend on it," California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a prepared statement. On Monday, 22 attorneys general sued the National Institutes of Health to block the Trump administration from capping reimbursements to research institutions. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. |
Categories |
RSS Feed
© Walk 4 Change. All rights reserved.