Connect with us

News

Supreme Court sides with administration over Education Department grants

Published

on

Supreme Court sides with administration over Education Department grants

The Supreme Court

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday sided with the Trump administration, at least for now, in a dispute over the Department of Education’s freeze of DEI-related grants. The administration has taken several grievances to the high court recently, but this was the first of its legal theories to stick.

By a 5-4 vote, the justices allowed the administration to keep frozen $65 million for teacher training and professional development, halting a lower court order that had temporarily reinstated the grants.

The court’s unsigned opinion comes about a month after a similar dispute in which the justices left in place a lower court order to pay USAID contractors for services already performed.

Advertisement

This time, however, with education grants on the line, the court majority ruled that even though Congress had already appropriated money for the programs, the Education Department could stop funding them while the case is litigated in the lower courts.

The Education Department had frozen the grants in anticipation of trying to claw back unspent funds that had been appropriated by Congress.

A federal district judge had issued two consecutive 14-day temporary restraining orders to consider the question of the frozen funds. While such 14-day orders are rarely appealable, the Supreme Court majority viewed this case differently, and granted the administration’s request to block the lower court order from going into effect. In an unsigned 2-1/2-page opinion, the majority wrote that the lower court may actually not have had the authority to issue its order in the first place.

Justice Elena Kagan dissented, saying that the Court had made a serious “mistake” when it intervened too swiftly, effectively changing the court’s rules with only a “barebones briefing, no argument and scarce time for reflection.” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, noted that it was exceptional for the Court to intervene when the temporary restraining order would expire in only three days, and that that the administration had not presented a convincing enough argument as to why such an extraordinary intervention was necessary.

While Chief Justice John Roberts noted his disagreement with the majority, he did not join either dissenting opinion.

Advertisement

Universities accused of violating civil rights law

The Education Department funding went to two grant programs targeting teacher shortages. Recipients included “high need” institutions, nonprofits, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities.

The Department of Education cut nearly all of the existing grants in February, notwithstanding the fact that Congress had already appropriated the funds to be spent for these specific purposes. The administration said it eliminated 104 of 109 grants because they “fund discriminatory practices–including in the form of DEI.”

The Department also sent letters to the recipients stating that their programs violated federal civil rights laws by discriminating based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics.

Eight states whose universities and nonprofits had their grants terminated–California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin–sued in federal district court. The challengers argued that the Department of Education’s decision to cancel the grants violated federal law. In response, the government argued that it was well within its broad regulatory authority to cancel the grants because the so-called “DEI initiatives” were no longer aligned with government policy.

A federal judge in Boston issued a temporary restraining order, which reinstated the funding for up to 28 days while he considered the states’ claims. After a failed attempt to overturn the order in the federal court of appeals, the Department of Education asked the Supreme Court to stop the lower courts from reinstating the grant money, at least for now.

Advertisement

The Department insisted that it should not be forced to continue funding millions of dollars in “taxpayer money that may never be clawed back” while the lawsuit plays out in the courts. It pointed out that, even if it eventually wins this case, it would have a hard time getting the millions in federal dollars back once the “federal funding spigots” had been turned back on.

The eight states that are part of the lawsuit against the administration countered that it would make little sense for the Supreme Court to intervene at this stage, given that the grant reinstatement would expire soon anyway. And, they pointed out, the order’s limited shelf life gave grant recipients little time to continue receiving government funds.

In that sense, the schools would be getting a drop in the bucket compared to the government’s image of a “funding spigot.” And that would still be less than they were promised in their five-year grant.

The Supreme Court didn’t see things that way, and instead sided with the Trump administration, delivering a major win to an executive branch trying to amass greater power as it continually clashes with the lower federal courts.

More cases in the pipeline

Friday’s case is only the latest of what is expected to be a tsunami of cases that the Trump administration is bringing to the Supreme Court. Among those already in the pipeline at early stages of litigation is a lower court order that reinstated roughly 16,000 previously terminated federal employees.

Advertisement

Another court stopped the administration from denying birthright citizenship for some children born in the United States, a case in which the government complained at length about the use of universal injunctions, a wide-reaching order that applies to everyone impacted across the country. And most recently, the administration asked the court to allow it to continue deporting U.S. residents, without a hearing, who it alleges are Venezuelan members of the Tren de Aragua gang.

Bubbling under the surface in these cases is the government’s ongoing critique of sweeping court orders that bind the administration’s actions beyond the confines of the courtroom. Judges’ grants of nationwide relief have been a thorn in the administration’s side since Trump took office in January.

They were also a thorn in the side of the Biden administration. But as frustrated as that administration sometimes was, it rarely complained of unfair treatment. In contrast, the Trump administration, and President Trump himself, have cried foul repeatedly and loudly over these lower court decisions.

Attorney General Pam Bondi in a statement said Friday’s ruling “vindicates what the Department of Justice has been arguing for months: local district judges do not have the jurisdiction to seize control of taxpayer dollars, force the government to pay out billions, or unilaterally halt President Trump’s policy agenda.”

—NPR’s Ryan Lucas contributed to this report.

Advertisement

News

Video: First Batch of Epstein Files Provides Few Revelations

Published

on

Video: First Batch of Epstein Files Provides Few Revelations

new video loaded: First Batch of Epstein Files Provides Few Revelations

transcript

transcript

First Batch of Epstein Files Provides Few Revelations

The Justice Department, under pressure from Congress to comply with a law signed by President Trump, released more than 13,000 files on Friday arising from investigations into Jeffrey Epstein.

Put out the files and stop redacting names that don’t need to be redacted. It’s just — who are we trying to protect? Are we protecting the survivors? Or are we protecting these elite men that need to be put out there?

Advertisement
The Justice Department, under pressure from Congress to comply with a law signed by President Trump, released more than 13,000 files on Friday arising from investigations into Jeffrey Epstein.

By McKinnon de Kuyper

December 20, 2025

Continue Reading

News

Apple, Google tell workers on visas to avoid leaving the U.S. amid Trump immigration crackdown

Published

on

Apple, Google tell workers on visas to avoid leaving the U.S. amid Trump immigration crackdown

With reported months-long consulate and embassy delays, Google and Apple say employees on H-1B visas should stay put in the U.S. right now to avoid the risk of getting stranded abroad. The latter tech company’s headquarters campus is seen in Mountain View, Calif.

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Apple and Google are warning some U.S-based employees on visas against traveling outside of the country to avoid the risk of getting stuck coming back, as the Trump administration toughens vetting of visa applicants, according to recent internal memos from the tech companies that were reviewed by NPR.

U.S. consulates and embassies have been reporting lengthy, sometimes months-long delays, for visa appointments following new rules from the Department of Homeland Security requiring travelers to undergo a screening of up to five years’ of their social media history — a move criticized by free speech advocates as a privacy invasion.

For Apple and Google, which together employ more than 300,000 employees and rely heavily on highly-skilled foreign workers, the increased vetting and reports of extended delays were enough for the companies to tell some of their staff to stay in the U.S. if they are able to avoid foreign travel.

Advertisement

“We recommend avoiding international travel at this time as you risk an extended stay outside of the U.S.,” Berry Appleman & Leiden, a law firm that works with Google, wrote to employees.

The law firm Fragomen, which works with Apple, wrote a similar message: “Given the recent updates and the possibility of unpredictable, extended delays when returning to the U.S., we strongly recommend that employees without a valid H-1B visa stamp avoid international travel for now,” the memo read. “If travel cannot be postponed, employees should connect with Apple Immigration and Fragomen in advance to discuss the risks.”

Apple and Google declined to comment on the advisories, which were first reported by Business Insider.

It’s the latest sign of how the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration policies are affecting the foreign-born workforce in the U.S.

Earlier this year, the White House announced that companies will be subjected to a $100,000 fee for all new H-1B visas, a type of visa popular among tech companies eager to hire highly skilled workers from abroad.

Advertisement

H-1Bs typically last three years, and applicants have to return to an embassy or consulate in their home country for a renewal, but reports suggest such a routine trip could lead to people being stranded for months as a result of the Trump administration’s new policies.

On Friday, The Washington Post reported that hundreds of visa holders who traveled to India to renew their H-1Bs had their appointments postponed with the State Department explaining that officials needed more time to ensure that no applicants “pose a threat to U.S. national security or public safety.”

At Google, the Alphabet Workers’ Union has been campaigning for additional protections for workers on H-1B visas. Those workers would be particularly vulnerable in the event Google carried out layoffs, since losing employer sponsorship could jeopardize their legal status, said Google software engineer Parul Koul, who leads the union.

The need to support H-1B holders at Google, she said, has “only become more urgent with all the scrutiny and heightened vetting by the Trump administration around the H1B program, and how the administration is coming for all other types of immigrant workers.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

U.S. launches strikes in Syria targeting Islamic State fighters after American deaths

Published

on

U.S. launches strikes in Syria targeting Islamic State fighters after American deaths

President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth salute as carry teams move the transfer cases with the remains of Iowa National Guard soldiers Sgt. William Nathaniel Howard, 29, of Marshalltown, Iowa, and Sgt. Edgar Brian Torres-Tovar, 25, of Des Moines, Iowa, and civilian interpreter Ayad Mansoor Sakat, who were killed in an attack in Syria, during a casualty return, Wednesday, Dec. 17, 2025 at Dover Air Force Base, Del.

Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration launched military strikes Friday in Syria to “eliminate” Islamic State group fighters and weapons sites in retaliation for an ambush attack that killed two U.S. troops and an American civilian interpreter almost a week ago.

A U.S. official described it as “a large-scale” strike that hit 70 targets in areas across central Syria that had IS infrastructure and weapons. Another U.S. official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive operations, said more strikes should be expected.

“This is not the beginning of a war — it is a declaration of vengeance. The United States of America, under President Trump’s leadership, will never hesitate and never relent to defend our people,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on social media.

Advertisement

The new military operation in Syria comes even as the Trump administration has said it’s looking to focus closer to home in the Western Hemisphere, building up an armada in the Caribbean Sea as it targets alleged drug-smuggling boats and vowing to keep seizing sanctioned oil tankers as part of a pressure campaign on Venezuela’s leader. The U.S. has shifted significant resources away from the Middle East to further those goals: Its most advanced aircraft carrier arrived in South American waters last month from the Mediterranean Sea.

Trump vowed retaliation

President Donald Trump pledged “very serious retaliation” after the shooting in the Syrian desert, for which he blamed IS. Those killed were among hundreds of U.S. troops deployed in eastern Syria as part of a coalition fighting the militant group.

During a speech in North Carolina on Friday evening, the president hailed the operation as a “massive strike” that took out the “ISIS thugs in Syria who were trying to regroup.”

Earlier, in his social media post, he reiterated his backing for Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa, who Trump said was “fully in support” of the U.S. effort.

Trump also offered an all-caps threat, warning IS against attacking American personnel again.

Advertisement

“All terrorists who are evil enough to attack Americans are hereby warned — YOU WILL BE HIT HARDER THAN YOU HAVE EVER BEEN HIT BEFORE IF YOU, IN ANY WAY, ATTACK OR THREATEN THE U.S.A.,” the president added.

The attack was conducted using F-15 Eagle jets, A-10 Thunderbolt ground attack aircraft and AH-64 Apache helicopters, the U.S. officials said. F-16 fighter jets from Jordan and HIMARS rocket artillery also were used, one official added.

U.S. Central Command, which oversees the region, said in a social media post that American jets, helicopters and artillery employed more than 100 precision munitions on Syrian targets.

How Syria has responded

The attack was a major test for the warming ties between the United States and Syria since the ouster of autocratic leader Bashar Assad a year ago. Trump has stressed that Syria was fighting alongside U.S. troops and said al-Sharaa was “extremely angry and disturbed by this attack,” which came as the U.S. military is expanding its cooperation with Syrian security forces.

Syria’s foreign ministry in a statement on X following the launch of U.S. strikes said that last week’s attack “underscores the urgent necessity of strengthening international cooperation to combat terrorism in all its forms” and that Syria is committed “to fighting ISIS and ensuring that it has no safe havens on Syrian territory and will continue to intensify military operations against it wherever it poses a threat.”

Advertisement

Syrian state television reported that the U.S. strikes hit targets in rural areas of Deir ez-Zor and Raqqa provinces and in the Jabal al-Amour area near the historic city of Palmyra. It said they targeted “weapons storage sites and headquarters used by ISIS as launching points for its operations in the region.”

IS has not said it carried out the attack on the U.S. service members, but the group has claimed responsibility for two attacks on Syrian security forces since, one of which killed four Syrian soldiers in Idlib province. The group in its statements described al-Sharaa’s government and army as “apostates.” While al-Sharaa once led a group affiliated with al-Qaida, he has had a long-running enmity with IS.

The Americans who were killed

Trump this week met privately with the families of the slain Americans at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware before he joined top military officials and other dignitaries on the tarmac for the dignified transfer, a solemn and largely silent ritual honoring U.S. service members killed in action.

The guardsmen killed in Syria last Saturday were Sgt. Edgar Brian Torres-Tovar, 25, of Des Moines, and Sgt. William Nathaniel Howard, 29, of Marshalltown. Ayad Mansoor Sakat, of Macomb, Michigan, a U.S. civilian working as an interpreter, also was killed.

The shooting near Palmyra also wounded three other U.S. troops as well as members of Syria’s security forces, and the gunman was killed. The assailant had joined Syria’s internal security forces as a base security guard two months ago and recently was reassigned because of suspicions that he might be affiliated with IS, Interior Ministry spokesperson Nour al-Din al-Baba has said.

Advertisement

The man stormed a meeting between U.S. and Syrian security officials who were having lunch together and opened fire after clashing with Syrian guards.

Continue Reading

Trending