Judge that restored NIH grants after Trump order echoed famous McCarthy-era lawyer from Boston

McCarthy and his chief counsel, Roy Cohn, smeared people left and right, using innuendo instead of evidence, acting — as Erwin Griswold, a former Republican solicitor general and dean of Harvard Law School put it — as 'judge, jury, prosecutor, castigator, and press agent, all in one.'
Welch was a partner at the Boston firm of Hale & Dorr and lived in Walpole. In the spring of 1954, McCarthy went after the Army, accusing it of lax security, leaving it open to communist infiltration. Welch took on McCarthy for the Army.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
For 30 days, Welch appeared before McCarthy's committee, making the Army's case, systematically showing that McCarthy's claims about the Army being soft on communism were unfounded.
Advertisement
Frustrated by Welch's ability to show the paucity of McCarthy's claims, McCarthy waved one of his distractions, asserting that Fred Fischer, a junior associate in Welch's law firm, while a student at Harvard Law School had been a member of the National Lawyers Guild, which McCarthy called the legal arm of the Communist Party.
This violated an agreement that Welch and Cohn had made before the hearings, that Welch would not bring up Cohn's ability to avoid the draft in the Korean War, and the committee would not bring up Fischer having been associated with a legal organization that represented accused communists while in law school.
Advertisement
Welch's response to McCarthy would go down in history as
'Until this moment, Senator,' Welch said, 'I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness.'
When McCarthy tried to interrupt, Welch added this dagger: 'Let us not assassinate this lad further, senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?'
Fast forward to another June, 71 years after Welch spoke those immortal lines, when US District Judge William G. Young, sitting in federal court in Boston,
On Monday, Young accused the Trump administration of discriminating against minorities and members of the LGBTQ+ community and ordered the National Institutes of Health to restore hundreds of research grants that the Trump administration had dismissed as DEI-inspired 'woke' nonsense.
'I've sat on this bench now for 40 years. I've never seen government racial discrimination like this,' Young said. 'Is it true of our society as a whole? Have we fallen so low? Have we no shame?'
'Have we no shame' sounds an awful lot like, 'Have you no sense of decency?'
Young said the cuts to grants that funded research into racial disparities in health care were 'arbitrary and capricious,' that they were based not on reasoned policy, but on pure bias.
The White House fired back, accusing Young of being, well, biased.
Advertisement
'It is appalling that a federal judge would use court proceedings to express his political views and preferences,' White House spokesperson Kush Desai said in a statement. 'How is a judge going to deliver an impartial decision when he explicitly stated his biased opinion that the Administration's retraction of illegal DEI funding is racist and anti-LGBTQ?'
Casting Young as some lefty activist jurist is a stretch. Early in his career, he served as chief counsel to Massachusetts Governor Frank Sargent, a Republican. Young was appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of modern conservatism.
Having watched Young in action for 40 years, I'd say he's biased mostly toward the Constitution.
Brittany Charlton, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School, and one of the plaintiffs that challenged the Trump administration's cuts, said the administration was accusing the judge of the very bias it showed in making the cuts in the first place.
She said Young's decision 'is an important step in protecting public health and allowing critical research to continue. Research that helps us understand and treat serious diseases should be based on science, not politics.'
In his ruling, Young made it clear that he believed the Trump administration's rationale for cutting research about racial minorities and LGBTQ+ people was unsupported by facts. Welch said the same thing about McCarthy's claims about the Army being soft on communists.
'This court finds and rules that the explanations are bereft of reasoning virtually in their entirety,' Young said. 'These edicts are nothing more than conclusory, unsupported by factual development.'
Young asked the Department of Justice attorney representing the Trump administration to explain how funding research related to issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion led to 'unlawful discrimination.'
Advertisement
'Where's the support for that? Any support? Any rational explanation?' Young said. 'I see no evidence of that. Point me to any particular grant or group of grants being used to support unlawful discrimination on the basis of race. From what I can see, it's the reverse.'
Young said the government was guilty of the very thing it claimed the research causes.
'I am hesitant to draw this conclusion, but I have an unflinching obligation to draw it, that this represents racial discrimination and discrimination against America's LGBTQ community,' Young said. 'That's what this is. I would be blind not to call it out. My duty is to call it out.'
Like Welch, Young is a Harvard grad. Maybe the Trump administration can chalk all this up to Harvard's revenge.
Young's comments were not nationally televised, and they have not ignited the backlash against the Trump administration that Welch's remarks did against McCarthy.
Still, as Martin Luther King Jr. observed, the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. Justice is inevitable. But it takes time.
Five years after dressing McCarthy down, Welch played a judge in Otto Preminger's film, 'Anatomy of a Murder.' His portrayal won him a Golden Globe nomination as best supporting actor.
But his best performance was on June 9, 1954, when he exposed a bully for what he was, inspiring a nation to do the same.
Kevin Cullen is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

an hour ago

Supreme Court rejects toy company's push for a quick decision on Trump's tariffs

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a push from an Illinois toy company asking for a quick decision on the legality of President Donald Trump's tariffs. Learning Resources Inc. wanted the justices to take up the case soon, rather than let it continue to play out in lower courts. The company argues the tariffs and uncertainty are having a 'massive impact' on businesses around the country and the issue needs swift attention from the nation's highest court. The justices didn't explain their reasoning in the brief order rebuffing the motion to fast-track the issue, but the Supreme Court is typically reluctant to take up cases before lower courts have decided. An appeals court is set to hear the case in late July. The company argues that the Republican president illegally imposed tariffs under an emergency powers law, bypassing Congress. It won an early victory in a lower court, but the order is on hold as an appeals court considers a similar ruling putting a broader block on Trump's tariffs. The appeals court has allowed Trump to continue collecting tariffs under the emergency powers law for now. The Trump administration has defended the tariffs by arguing that the emergency powers law gives the president the authority to regulate imports during national emergencies and that the country's longtime trade deficit qualifies as a national emergency.

New York Post

2 hours ago

• New York Post

Nashville Mayor Freddie O'Connell stands behind doxing ICE agents even after officials said his actions put them in danger

The Democratic mayor of Tennessee's largest city, who has been accused of obstructing federal immigration efforts, defended his office's decision to publicly dox the names of immigration officers. Nashville Mayor Freddie O'Connell's defense came even after the names of federal immigration officials were removed from a public immigration report detailing a month's worth of immigration-related interactions between local police and federal immigration authorities. Initially, the public report detailed immigration officers' names, but following backlash over the move the names were taken down. 'I wouldn't say it was an endangerment process, I would say they may have some concerns – I'm far more concerned about the overall dynamic we have about unmarked, unidentifiable masked people whisking people into vehicles – i think that's a bigger concern,' O'Connell, who is currently under investigation by GOP House lawmakers for potentially interfering with federal immigration efforts, said during a press conference with reporters. O'Connell did add the move was not 'intentional,' but then quickly followed up that he wouldn't have described what happened as 'doxing' in the first place. 'It's not a process that I would characterize as doxing. It was an unintentional release of names that were already part of a public record,' he told reporters. 'They were already part of a public record by being in Department of Emergency Communication's calls, so I don't think it puts them at additional risk. But it's also not an intention of the executive order under which those names are released.' Nashville Mayor Freddie O'Connell was accused of obstructing federal immigration efforts. WireImage Fox News Digital reached out to O'Connell's office for comment but did not hear back in time for publication. Larry Adams, an Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Assistant Field Office Director, told local Fox affiliate in Nashville WZTV that ICE agents disagree that making their names public is not a risk, noting their faces can easily be matched to photos on social media. 'It has gotten more and more difficult,' Adams said of his job under the new administration's aggressive deportation tactics, during a ride along with WZTV that occurred last week. 'What affects me the most, is we understand the job we are doing, we understand what we sign up for, it's mostly the attacks or threats against our families.' After Tennessee Republican Congressman Rep. Andy Ogles requested the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) investigate the Nashville mayor over allegedly obstructing federal officials, the agency followed through and opened an investigation. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers gathered at the DHS field office in Nashville on May 4, 2025. REUTERS Meanwhile, two congressional committees are also investigating him, including requesting documents related to O'Connell's Executive Order 30, which has required city departments to report federal immigration communications to the city of Nashville's Office of New Americans. In an interview with Fox News' Laura Ingraham, Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin remarked at the danger associated with doxing federal immigration officers, noting that the act effectively handed cartels intelligence 'on a silver platter.' 'These are the tip of the spear, these are the people on the front lines trying to make our communities safer,' McLaughlin said. 'So, when Democrats and the media show us who they are, we'll believe them, and it's the fact that they're fighting for people like MS-13 and child rapists to be on American streets.' According to local news outlet, the Tennessee Lookout, McLaughlin has also clapped back at O'Connell's claims that the release of immigration officials' names was a mistake. 'They claimed it was a mistake. There's zero chance it was a mistake, and there will be repercussions,' she said, according to the outlet.

Yahoo

2 hours ago

• Yahoo

Federal appeals court rules Louisiana Ten Commandments school law is unconstitutional

A federal appeals court on Friday ruled that a Louisiana law requiring the Ten Commandments to be displayed in all public-school classrooms and state-funded universities in the state is unconstitutional. Three federal appellate judges on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Louisiana said they affirmed a lower district court's ruling that the statute was "facially unconstitutional." Last June, a group of parents sued the state over concerns the law that went into effect in January violates the separation of church and state. The district court issued a preliminary injunction on the law last November in the five school districts that involve plaintiffs. Arkansas Families Sue To Keep 10 Commandments Out Of Classroom Before New Law Takes Effect "H.B. 71 is plainly unconstitutional. The district court did not err," the appeals court said on Friday, referring to the statute. "H.B. 71's minimum requirements provide sufficient details about how the Ten Commandments must be displayed. Plaintiffs have shown that those displays will cause an "irreparable" deprivation of their First Amendment rights." Read On The Fox News App The law was passed by Louisiana's Republican-controlled legislature last year and says the text of the Ten Commandments must be written in "large, easily readable font." Supreme Court Weighs Religious Liberty Dispute Over Public Funding For Catholic Charter School "The Ten Commandments must be displayed with a 'context statement' about the 'History of the Ten Commandments in American Public Education,' and 'may' be displayed with 'the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, and the Northwest Ordinance,'" the statute says. "We are grateful for this decision, which honors the religious diversity and religious-freedom rights of public school families across Louisiana," Rev. Darcy Roake, a plaintiff in the case represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said. "As an interfaith family, we believe that our children should receive their religious education at home and within our faith communities, not from government officials." Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said in a statement: "This ruling will ensure that Louisiana families – not politicians or public-school officials – get to decide if, when and how their children engage with religion. It should send a strong message to Christian Nationalists across the country that they cannot impose their beliefs on our nation's public-school children. Not on our watch." Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a statement on Friday that she and her office "strongly disagree" with the ruling, according to "We will immediately seek relief from the full Fifth Circuit and, if necessary, the U.S. Supreme Court," she added. Fox News Digital has reached out to Murrill for comment. Arkansas has a similar law and other Republican states are on the verge of similar article source: Federal appeals court rules Louisiana Ten Commandments school law is unconstitutional