Latest news with #1stCircuit
CNN
06-06-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Trump urges Supreme Court to allow mass layoffs at Education Department
President Donald Trump's administration urged the Supreme Court on Friday to allow officials to gut the Department of Education, a key priority for the president that has been stymied by a series of lower court decisions. The emergency appeal landed at the high court days after the Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals declined to reverse a lower court order that halted mass firings at the department, which was created during the Carter administration. Trump has filed more than a dozen emergency appeals at the Supreme Court since he returned to office in January. In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the administration argues its effort at the Education Department involves 'internal management decisions' and 'eliminating discretionary functions that, in the administration's view, are better left to the states.' Though Trump has repeatedly vowed to get rid of the department, the administration's lawyers told the Supreme Court in its filing on Friday that 'the government has been crystal clear in acknowledging that only Congress can eliminate the Department of Education.' Trump ordered mass layoffs at the department earlier this year. The problem for the administration is that the department was created by Congress, and so lower courts have ruled it cannot be unilaterally unwound by the White House. At the same time, the administration does have the power to reduce the size of federal agencies, so long as they can continue to carry out their legal requirements. And that, the Department of Justice told the Supreme Court, is precisely what the administration is attempting to do. 'The Department remains committed to implementing its statutorily mandated functions,' the Department of Justice told the Supreme Court in the appeal. The Education Department is tasked with distributing federal aid to schools, managing federal aid for college students and ensuring compliance with civil rights laws – including ensuring schools accommodate students with disabilities. Most public-school policies are a function of state government. US District Judge Myong Joun, nominated to the bench by former President Joe Biden, indefinitely halted Trump's plans to dismantle the agency and ordered the administration to reinstate employees who had been fired en masse. The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by a teachers' union, school districts, states and education groups. Noting that the department 'cannot be shut down without Congress's approval,' Joun said Trump's planned layoffs 'will likely cripple' it. 'The record abundantly reveals that defendants' true intention is to effectively dismantle the department without an authorizing statute,' he wrote. The Supreme Court is already considering a related emergency case about whether Trump can order mass firings and reorganizations in other federal departments. 'What is at stake in this case,' the 1st Circuit wrote, 'was whether a nearly half-century-old cabinet department would be permitted to carry out its statutorily assigned functions or prevented from doing so by a mass termination of employees aimed at implementing the effective closure of that department.' Trump's order would have affected about half of the department's employees, according to court records.
CNN
04-06-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Federal appeals court refuses to lift ruling halting mass layoffs at Department of Education
A federal appeals court declined on Wednesday to lift a judge's ruling that blocked the Trump administration from effectively shutting down the Department of Education. The unanimous decision from the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals is another significant legal setback for President Donald Trump, whose efforts to rapidly shrink the federal government – including through dismantling entire agencies – have been tied up in numerous court challenges. Cutting the Department of Education has been of particular interest to Trump in his second term. Earlier this year, he moved ahead with mass layoffs at the agency, which is tasked with distributing federal aid to schools, managing federal aid for college students and ensuring compliance with civil rights laws. The administration, 1st Circuit Chief Judge David Barron wrote for the panel, has not 'shown that the public's interest lies in permitting a major federal department to be unlawfully disabled from performing its statutorily assigned functions.' The court also said that the administration had not demonstrated that it was likely to ultimately win in the case, with Barron writing that Justice Department attorneys had not put forth evidence showing how the widespread layoffs at the department would not prevent it from carrying out its core functions. Last month, US District Judge Myong Joun of the federal court in Boston indefinitely halted Trump's plans to dismantle the agency and ordered the administration to reinstate employees who had been fired en masse. The ruling came in a lawsuit brought by a teachers' union, school districts, states and education groups. Noting that the department 'cannot be shut down without Congress's approval,' Joun, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, said that the planned layoffs at the agency 'will likely cripple' it. 'The record abundantly reveals that Defendants' true intention is to effectively dismantle the Department without an authorizing statute,' he wrote in the 88-page ruling. Attorneys for the Department of Justice quickly asked the Boston-based appeals court to pause Joun's ruling while they appealed it, writing in court papers that it 'represents an extraordinary incursion on the Executive Branch's authority to manage its workforce.' 'Beyond that, it requires the government to indefinitely retain and pay employees whose services it no longer requires, and the government cannot recoup those salaries if it prevails on appeal,' the DOJ attorneys wrote.
Reuters
27-05-2025
- Business
- Reuters
US appeals court rejects challenge to federal marijuana ban
BOSTON, May 27 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday rejected arguments by several Massachusetts cannabis businesses that the federal prohibition on marijuana could no longer be deemed constitutional, as the U.S. Supreme Court held two decades ago. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, opens new tab that changes in how marijuana is regulated and sold in the decades since the Supreme Court upheld the law in 2005 did not mean the federal ban was no longer constitutional. Lawyers for the cannabis businesses including prominent litigator David Boies had argued that Congress has abandoned its goal of controlling all marijuana in interstate commerce, which they said was a key predicate of the Supreme Court's holding. In that case, Gonzales v. Raich, the high court held that under the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause, Congress had the authority to criminalize the possession and use of marijuana even in states that permit its use for medical purposes as it did in the Controlled Substances Act. Today, 38 states, including Massachusetts, have legalized marijuana for medical or recreational use, and under the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendments that have been included in annual appropriation bills since 2014, the Justice Department may not spend funds to interfere with state medical marijuana laws. Boies during arguments in December also pointed to Congress' decision in 2010 to permit medical marijuana in the District of Columbia. But Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron, writing for a three-judge panel, said that the so-called appropriations rider was of "limited scope" and did not apply to the cultivation and distribution of marijuana for non-medical purposes. "After all, notwithstanding those appropriation riders, the CSA remains fully intact as to the regulation of the commercial activity involving marijuana for non-medical purposes, which is the activity in which the appellants, by their own account, are engaged," he wrote. He said that a ruling for the plaintiffs would result in a nationwide exemption to the Controlled Substances Act's comprehensive drug regulatory regime that was far broader than the one the Supreme Court rejected in the 2005 case, which concerned only medicinal marijuana sales, not recreational uses. Jonathan Schiller, a lawyer for the plaintiffs at Boies Schiller Flexner, said it "is fair to assume that we shall seek Supreme Court review." The lawsuit was filed in 2023 by Massachusetts retailer Canna Provisions, marijuana delivery business owner Gyasi Sellers, grower Wiseacre Farm and publicly traded multistate operator Verano Holdings ( opens new tab. U.S. District Judge Mark Mastroianni, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, last year rejected their arguments, saying only the U.S. Supreme Court could overturn its 2005 ruling upholding the law. The plaintiffs say that holding has been undercut by subsequent developments. In 2021, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the 2005 ruling's reasoning may no longer apply and that the ban "may no longer be necessary or proper", in response to the court's decision not to hear a different case. The Justice Department during the last year of Democratic President Joe Biden's tenure moved to make marijuana use a less serious federal crime by reclassifying it as a Schedule III drug instead of Schedule I, which is reserved for drugs with a high potential for abuse. The fate of that proposal remains uncertain. Republican President Donald Trump's nominee to lead the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Terry Cole, has declined to commit to rescheduling cannabis, saying only that he would "give the matter careful consideration." The case is Canna Provisions Inc v Garland, 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-1628. For the plaintiffs: David Boies and Jonathan Schiller of Boies Schiller Flexner For the U.S.: Daniel Aguilar of the U.S. Department of Justice Read more: US appeals court skeptical of challenge to federal marijuana ban Cannabis businesses lose court challenge to US marijuana ban
Boston Globe
27-05-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Justices allow Middleborough school to bar student from wearing ‘Only Two Genders' shirt
The opinion illustrated a split among the members of the court's six-member conservative supermajority, said Justin Driver, a law professor at Yale University. Advertisement 'The dissent both illuminates and underscores a significant divide among the six Republican-appointed justices,' he said, 'with Alito and Thomas comfortable voicing positions that the other four would prefer to avoid.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The case involved a student identified in court papers as L.M. who tried to wear the shirt at Nichols Middle School in Middleborough in 2023. When students and a teacher complained, the principal told the student that he could not return to class unless he changed clothes. He refused and was sent home. Later, the student came to school wearing a T-shirt that this time said 'There Are CENSORED Genders.' He was told that was not permitted, either. Rather than missing more school, he changed clothes. His parents sued, saying the school's policy violated the First Amendment. They relied on a landmark 1969 Supreme Court decision, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which held that public school students have First Amendment rights. In that case, students sought to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. Advertisement Justice Abe Fortas, writing for the majority, said students do not 'shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.' But he added that disruptive speech could be punished. In the Massachusetts case, a federal trial judge ruled for the school, saying the student's shirts had invaded the rights of other students. The US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, in Boston, affirmed that ruling. Judge David J. Barron, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, said the school could ban messages that demean other students' deeply rooted characteristics in a way that poisons the educational atmosphere. Alito wrote that the 1st Circuit's approach was at odds with Tinker and violated the First Amendment's prohibition of viewpoint discrimination by the government. 'Like the black armbands in Tinker, L.M.'s shirts were a 'silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance,'' he wrote, quoting from the decision. 'And just as in Tinker, some of L.M.'s classmates found his speech upsetting. Feeling upset, however, is an unavoidable part of living in our 'often disputatious' society, and Tinker made abundantly clear that the 'mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint' is no reason to thwart a student's speech.' Alito added that the Massachusetts school 'promotes the view that gender is a fluid construct' and should allow other perspectives. 'If anything, viewpoint discrimination in the lower grades is more objectionable because young children are more impressionable and thus more susceptible to indoctrination,' he wrote. Advertisement The court will soon decide a case on a related question: whether public schools in Maryland must allow parents with religious objections to withdraw their children from classes in which storybooks with LGBTQ+ themes are discussed. Driver said 'Justice Alito's emphasizing the dangers of 'indoctrination' of younger students could well preview a theme' in the Maryland case. In addition to joining Alito's dissent, Thomas, long a skeptic of minors' First Amendment rights, wrote separately to say he believed that Tinker should be overruled. 'But, unless and until this court revisits it, Tinker is binding precedent that lower courts must faithfully apply,' he wrote.
The Independent
27-05-2025
- General
- The Independent
US Supreme Court refuses student's case over ‘There are only two genders' T-shirt
The Supreme Court has declined to hear a case regarding a Massachusetts public school's decision to prevent a student from wearing a T-shirt that read "There are only two genders." The student, referred to as L.M. in court documents, was 12 years old when the incident occurred in 2023. He argued that the school's ban violated his free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution. He sought monetary damages from officials at John T. Nichols Middle School and the town of Middleborough. However, both a trial judge and the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled against him, upholding the school's decision as a reasonable restriction. The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case leaves the lower court's ruling in place. The 1st Circuit decision stated that "it was reasonable for Middleborough to forecast that a message displayed throughout the school day denying the existence of the gender identities of transgender and gender nonconforming students would have a serious negative impact on those students' ability to concentrate on their classroom work." The legal dispute implicates a 1969 Supreme Court precedent in a case known as Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District that lets public schools restrict student speech when it would "substantially disrupt" a school community. The issue of transgender rights is front and center in the U.S. culture wars. Since returning to office in January, Republican President Donald Trump has taken a hardline stance on transgender rights, targeting "gender ideology" and declaring that the U.S. government would recognise two sexes: male and female. The Supreme Court on May 6 permitted Trump's administration to implement his ban on transgender people in the military, allowing the armed forces to discharge the thousands of current transgender troops and reject new recruits while legal challenges play out. L.M., who was a seventh grade student at the time, wore the T-shirt reading "There are only two genders" to school in March 2023. His lawyers said in court papers he did so in order to "share his view that gender and sex are identical, and there are only two sexes - male and female." "L.M. hoped to start a meaningful conversation on gender ideology, a matter of public concern; protect other students against ideas that L.M. considers false and harmful; and show them compassionate people can believe that sex is binary," his lawyers wrote in a Supreme Court filing. A teacher reported the shirt to the school principal's office, noting that LGBT+ students were present at school that day and expressing concerns that the shirt could disrupt classes. The principal asked the boy if he would be willing to change his shirt and return to class, but he declined. The principal then called the boy's father, Chris Morrison, who opted to pick up his son from school rather than have him remove his shirt. Morrison, after complaining to school officials about the incident, was referred to the dress code in the school's student handbook. It states: "Clothing must not state, imply, or depict hate speech or imagery that target(s) groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious affiliation or any other classification." In May 2023, L.M. again wore the T-shirt to school, but covered the words "only two" with a piece of tape that read "censored," thus bearing the message: "There are (censored) genders." L.M. removed that shirt after being asked by school officials. During the proceedings, the school system's superintendent said that some students at John T. Nichols Middle School "have attempted suicide or have had suicidal ideations in the past few years, including members of the LGBTQ+ community," and that some of those students' struggles were "related to their treatment based on their gender identities by other students." The boy, who brought the lawsuit along with his father and stepmother, are represented in the lawsuit by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group that has represented clients in various high-profile cases before the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs sought a court order prohibiting school officials from barring his wearing of the T-shirt and declaring the disputed portions of the dress code unconstitutional. They also sought unspecified monetary damages. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, an appointee of Democratic former President Barack Obama, ruled in favor of the school officials. Her decision was upheld last year by the 1st Circuit, prompting the Supreme Court appeal. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, is expected to rule by the end of June in a major transgender rights case. During arguments in the case in December, the conservative justices signaled their willingness to uphold a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors.
