Judge says administration can dismantle the Institute of Museum and Library Services

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Friday denied a request by the American Library Association to halt the Trump administration's further dismantling of an agency that funds and promotes libraries across the country, saying that recent court decisions suggested his court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter.
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon had previously agreed to temporarily block the Republican administration, saying that plaintiffs were likely to show that Trump doesn't have the legal authority to unilaterally shutter the Institute of Museum and Library Services, which was created by Congress.
But in Friday's ruling, Leon wrote that as much as the 'Court laments the Executive Branch's efforts to cut off this lifeline for libraries and museums,' recent court decisions suggested that the case should be heard in a separate court dedicated to contractual claims.
He cited the Supreme Court's decision allowing the administration to cut hundreds of millions of dollars in teacher-training money despite a lower court order barring the cuts, saying that cases seeking reinstatement of federal grants should be heard in the Court of Federal Claims.
The American Library Association and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees filed a lawsuit to stop the administration from gutting the institute after President Donald Trump signed a March 14 executive order that refers to it and several other federal agencies as 'unnecessary.'
The agency's appointed acting director then placed many agency staff members on administrative leave, sent termination notices to most of them, began canceling grants and contracts and fired all members of the National Museum and Library Services Board.
However, a Rhode Island judge's order prohibiting the government from shutting down the museum and library services institute in a separate case brought by several states remains in place. The administration is appealing that order as well.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

20 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Oil tanks 6% as Iranian retaliation against US spares energy supply

Oil futures slid 6% on Monday as Iran appeared to spare the energy market while the country launched missiles targeted at a US air base in Qatar in retaliation for US bombings on Iranian nuclear sites. Brent crude (BZ=F), the international benchmark, dropped to $72 per barrel. West Texas Intermediate (CL=F) also fell roughly 6% to trade below $70 per barrel. The declines came after Iranian state media said it launched missile attacks against a US air base in Qatar, matching the number of bombs dropped by the US over the weekend, in a move the Associated Press said signaled "a likely desire to deescalate." Prior to the retaliatory move, Wall Street weighed various scenarios after President Trump announced on Saturday that the US struck three Iranian nuclear facilities, including the threat of Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for oil flows. On Monday morning, President Trump posted on social media: "To The Department of Energy: DRILL, BABY, DRILL!!! And I mean NOW!!!" "The main reason for this stability is that energy infrastructure has largely been spared from direct attacks, with number of oil tankers transiting through the Strait of Hormuz remaining steady," JPMorgan's Natasha Kaneva and her team wrote on Monday morning. On Sunday, futures spiked after Iran's parliament voted to close the Strait of Hormuz, but the final decision rests with Iran's Supreme National Security Council and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The oil market is now factoring in "a one-in-five chance of a material disruption in Gulf energy production flows, with potential for crude prices to reach the $120-130 range," Kaneva wrote. "Yet, beyond the short-term spike induced by geopolitics, our base case for oil remains anchored by our supply-demand balance, which shows that the world has enough oil," she added. She also noted that "with fewer reliable partners in the Middle East and limited regional appetite for a broader conflict, Iran faces a constrained set of options and a heightened set of risks as it deliberates its course of action." Other possible retaliatory moves from Iran could include supporting Yemen's Houthi rebels in renewed attacks on commercial shipping, or going after energy infrastructure in neighboring countries. If crude climbs into the $120 to $130 range, analysts predict gasoline and diesel prices could rise by as much as $1.25 per gallon. "Consumers would be looking at a national average gasoline price of around $4.50 per gallon — closer to $6.00 if you're in California," Lipow Oil Associates president Andy Lipow said in a Sunday note. The key issue isn't just the potential for supply disruption, but how long it lasts, Rebecca Babin, senior energy trader at CIBC Private Wealth, told Yahoo Finance on Sunday. "If infrastructure is hit but can be quickly restored, crude may struggle to hold gains," she said. "But if Iran's response causes lasting damage or introduces long-term supply risk, we're likely to see a stronger and more sustained move higher." Last week, JPMorgan analysts noted that since 1967 — aside from the Yom Kippur War in 1973 — none of the 11 major military conflicts involving Israel have had a lasting impact on oil prices. In contrast, events directly involving major regional oil producers, such as the first Gulf War in 1990, the Iraq War in 2003 and the imposition of sanctions on Iran in 2018, have all led to meaningful and sustained moves in oil markets. "During these episodes, we estimate that oil traded at a $7–$14 per barrel premium to its fair value for an extended period," JPMorgan's Kaneva wrote. They added that the most significant and lasting price impacts historically come from "regime changes" in oil-producing countries, whether that be through leadership transitions, coups, revolutions, or major political shifts. "While demand conditions and OPEC's spare capacity shape the broader market response, these events typically drive substantial oil price spikes, averaging a 76% increase from onset to peak," Kaneva wrote. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies (OPEC+) had raised output in the months leading up to Israel's strike on Iran on June 13. Ines Ferre is a Senior Business Reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow her on X at @ines_ferre. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Yahoo

21 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Fed officials are starting to break rank and join Trump

Some Federal Reserve officials are joining President Donald Trump in calling for lower interest rates as soon as July. Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman on Monday downplayed the potential impacts of Trump's tariffs on prices and said the US central bank should swiftly lower rates to preserve the labor market's health. 'It is time to consider adjusting the policy rate,' Bowman said. 'Should inflation pressures remain contained, I would support lowering the policy rate as soon as our next meeting in order to bring it closer to its neutral setting and to sustain a healthy labor market.' Bowman is the second Fed official to join Trump in calling for lower borrowing costs. On Friday, Fed Governor Christopher Waller said tariffs will likely only result in a 'one-off' increase in inflation. Both Bowman and Waller are Trump appointees. For months, Fed officials have said they prefer to wait to see how Trump's major policy shifts affect the US economy first before considering further rate cuts. At its policy meeting earlier this month, the Fed kept its benchmark lending rate unchanged for the fourth consecutive time. But that strategy hasn't sat well with Trump, who has relentlessly lashed out at the central bank and its leader, Fed Chair Jerome Powell, for not lowering rates. Trump has hurled various insults at Powell, describing him as a 'fool' and a 'numbskull.' Now, the Fed's wait-and-see posture is slowly crumbling, even as tensions in the Middle East heat up, which raises the risk of higher global energy prices. And the jury is still out on the ultimate impact of Trump's tariffs. Bowman said it's possible the Israel-Iran conflict — which escalated over the weekend with the US striking at three Iranian nuclear sites — results in higher commodity prices. And there's still the lingering possibility of Trump's trade war also pushing up prices, she said. Still, that may not even result in higher consumer prices because businesses don't have much leverage to hike prices this time around, Bowman said. 'I am certainly attentive to these inflation risks, but I am not yet seeing a major concern, as some retailers seem unwilling to raise prices for essentials due to high price sensitivity among low-income consumers and as supply chains appear to be largely unaffected so far,' Bowman said. Bowman isn't the only Fed official seemingly not worried about the potential economic impact of the Israel-Iran conflict. Powell has said higher energy prices spurred by the conflict will likely be short lived. 'When there's turmoil in the Middle East, you may see a spike in energy prices, but it tends to come down. Those things don't generally tend to have lasting effects on inflation, although of course in the 1970s, they famously did,' Powell said in a news conference following the Fed's June 17-18 policy meeting. 'But, we haven't seen anything like that now. The U.S. economy is far less dependent on foreign oil than it was back in the 1970s,' he added. Economists have said the economic impact of the current conflict largely depends on how out of hand it gets. A forecast from analysts at EY-Parthenon shows that the US economy could contract by a massive 1.9% annualized rate if the Middle East plunges into an all-out regional war. But in a 'contained' scenario, the US economy could contract only slightly. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

USA Today

24 minutes ago

• USA Today

Iran strikes US base after Trump bombing. Are you concerned about war? Tell us.

Last week, we asked you if the US should go to war with Iran. It looks like President Trump decided for us. We want to know how you feel about that. Last Thursday, on June 19, President Donald Trump said he would decide 'within the next two weeks' whether the United States would engage directly in the escalating conflict between Iran and Israel. Two days later, Trump announced the completion of a 'successful' attack on Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. On Monday, June 23, Iran responded by striking a U.S. military base in Qatar. And thus begins, perhaps, another U.S. 'forever war' in the Middle East. If you, like me, spent your entire life with America entrenched in Middle East conflicts – where friends and community members have laid down their lives for wars based on lies – then perhaps you, like me, are less than thrilled at this prospect. (Scroll down or click here to share your opinion with us.) And we're not alone. Do you think the US should have bombed Iran? In an Economist/YouGov poll released before the bombing, 60% of respondents said the U.S. military should not get directly involved. A majority – 56% – said that negotiations should continue. A Washington Post poll conducted June 18 found a similar pattern, with the majority of respondents opposing air strikes. And when USA TODAY conducted our own reader survey, we received an overwhelming response saying the United States should not get involved and America should refrain from official intervention. Previously: Should US go to war with Iran or support Israel from afar? Take our poll. | Opinion In the aftermath of the bombing, Americans – and the world – seem as divided as ever on the decision. Trump ally Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, applauded the move and even encouraged it, telling The Wall Street Journal that he told the president, 'This will reset our relationship with the rest of the world.' Meanwhile MAGA faithful Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, took to X on Monday to break with Trump, writing, 'It feels like a complete bait and switch.' Less than a week later, we want to know if that feeling has changed. Do you think Trump was right to bomb Iran? Do you think he should have waited for approval from Congress? What do you think Iran – and America – will do next? Are you concerned about the threat of nuclear war? Why did Trump strike Iran? Will it change anything? Questions have swirled in the immediate fallout from the June 21 bombing. In a speech that evening, Trump claimed Iran's three major sites had been 'obliterated.' But less than a day later, the picture was much less certain, with weapons experts, Iranian officials and even Russia contesting the true impact of the attack. These new developments beg the question: Was it worth it? And, with countries pledging to arm Iran with nuclear weapons anyway, did it even change anything? We want to know what you think. Take our poll below, or send us an email with the subject line "Forum US Iran war" to forum@ We'll publish a collection of responses from all sides of the conversation in our next installment of the Opinion Forum. Janessa Hilliard is the director of audience for USA TODAY Opinion and Opinion at Gannett.