By COLLIN BINKLEY

WASHINGTON (AP) — Confronted with huge cuts to its funding, Columbia University’s leaders face a grim decision: They can yield to the Trump administration’s demands over allegations of antisemitism — ceding extraordinary control to the federal government — or they can fight back, potentially risking even more debilitating cuts in an escalating clash.

Related Articles

Supreme Court seems in no hurry to rule on Trump plea to rein in judges over birthright citizenship

Legal showdown as Justice Department resists judge’s demand for more details on deportation flights

Judge blocks Trump administration from terminating $14 billion in ‘green bank’ grants

Violent attacks on Tesla dealerships spike as Musk takes prominent role in Trump White House

Trump fires 2 Democrats on the Federal Trade Commission, seeking more control over regulators

However it responds, Columbia carries tremendous weight. It’s the first school to face such aggressive intervention from the Trump administration, but dozens of others have been put on notice they’re next if they defy the president’s orders on issues around pro-Palestinian activism, diversity programs or transgender women in girl’s sports.

“People in the academy around the country are looking to see what Columbia does here,” said Samuel Bagenstos, a law professor at the University of Michigan who served until December as general counsel for the Health and Human Services Department.

The Trump administration is acting quickly to make an example of Columbia as it demands stronger action against allegations of anti-Jewish bias on college campuses. On March 7, just 32 days after opening an investigation at Columbia, the Trump administration pulled $400 million in research grants and other federal money. It threatened to cut billions more over the university’s handling of protests against the war in Gaza and allegations of antisemitism.

The threats escalated last week with a list of demands that Trump officials called a “precondition” for receiving federal money. It told the college to place its Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies Department into “academic receivership” and reorganize discipline processes, among other changes.

It gave Columbia until this week to comply.

Columbia hasn’t signaled its plans. Responding to the latest demands, interim President Katrina Armstrong promised the school “will stand by its values” but did not elaborate. School leaders previously pledged to work with the Trump administration to fight antisemitism.

Internally, Columbia faces pressure to fight back. Some faculty want it to resist demands they see as an assault on academic freedom, and some students are condemning its recent decision to expel some students who participated in pro-Palestinian protests last year.

Supporters of Israel and Trump administration officials have framed the protests at Columbia and other schools as antisemitic and “pro-Hamas,” but people involved in the demonstrations reject that characterization. They say advocating for Palestinian human rights and territorial claims, or criticizing Israeli military action, isn’t antisemitic. Some Jewish students and groups have participated in the protests.

Some Jewish students at Columbia, though, have complained the protest rhetoric has gone beyond criticism of Israel’s policies, and led to a hostile environment in which Jewish students felt threatened.

Several law scholars said the school could make a strong case that Trump officials illegally pulled Columbia’s federal money.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 allows the Education Department to terminate funding to colleges that violate civil rights laws, but only after taking certain steps. Title VI of the law says the department must first make a formal finding of noncompliance, offer a hearing, notify Congress and then wait 30 days before pulling aid.

It appears at least some steps weren’t followed, Bagenstos said.

“There has been no express finding, there has been no record, there has been no opportunity for a hearing,” he said. “This is just dramatically in violation of the procedural requirements under Title VI.”

Seven professors at Columbia Law School issued their own legal analysis Saturday, finding that the Trump administration’s letter violates the Title VI standards along with First Amendment protections and due process rights, among other problems.

The government’s demands threaten “fundamental legal principles and the mission of colleges and universities across the country,” according to the analysis, posted online by David Pozen, a constitutional law professor.

Columbia has little precedent to draw upon as it weighs its next steps. Presidential administrations traditionally have taken a cooperative approach to get colleges to comply with federal law, favoring voluntary agreements over sanctions. But the Trump administration is taking an adversarial role, moving quickly from demands to penalties with little room for negotiating.

Kenneth Marcus, who led the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights during Trump’s first term, said the administration appears to be using its wide latitude over federal contracts to pressure Columbia, rather than limiting itself to the “cumbersome, bureaucratic, and relatively weak” Title VI process.

“The Trump administration is moving faster and punching harder than we’ve seen in the past, and that clearly is going to have a greater impact than prior administrations,” said Marcus, who now leads the Brandeis Center, a Jewish civil rights nonprofit.

Marcus called it a creative and novel strategy that hasn’t been tested in the courts, but he said Columbia is wise to take a cooperative stance.

“Columbia no doubt realizes that the initial $400 million problem can balloon into a multi-billion dollar disaster if they respond poorly,” he said.

The administration’s strategy is part of a hardline approach laid out in a March 7 memo placing antisemitism as a top priority for the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights. Instead of ending cases with “toothless reform proposals,” it demands meaningful changes to campus policies with a “strong emphasis on compliance.”

One of the office’s new goals is to deter “would-be civil rights violators from engaging in this conduct in the first instance,” according to the memo, obtained by The Associated Press.

Columbia’s response will set an example for the rest of higher education but there are no easy options, said Rachel Moran, a law professor at Texas A&M University. It appears the Trump administration improperly cut the university’s funding, she said, but there’s no guarantee a judge would restore the aid amid a legal challenge. And Columbia has to consider other factors, including the possibility of future retaliation from the administration.

“It’s a very, very tough situation,” Moran said. “And Columbia really is in some ways exhibit A in this controversy.”

Bagenstos sees it as another attempt by the Trump administration to test legal boundaries and see what kind of pushback it gets.

“Columbia is one of the largest, most prominent, most well-resourced higher education institutions in the world. And they have a very strong case,” he said. “If they’re not pushing back, that is going to send a signal to the Trump administration and to the rest of the academy. There’s no doubt about that.”

The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

Dans les faits, les salle de jeu un peu vous permettront de tabler pour un archive de 1$. Leurs salle de jeu un peu vers 30$ pourront nous offrir véritablement d’options de jeux , ! la bonne montant aux yeux de votre conserve. Quand vous courez dans des appareil vers dessous pour jackpots de contact, vous allez avoir une chance de devenir millionnaire de chaque promenade. À votre instar pouvez le lire, PlayOJO Casino propose un bonus sans nul conditions pour mise – ce qui continue incroyable, ou disons-cet – plutôt unique. Consultez votre immatriculation pour salle de jeu à l’exclusion de conditions de savoir plus p’offres tel cela-là.

Malina Casino: source d’images

Mien casino n’joue aucun stoppe sur ce point et il n’existe loin p’explications fidèles. Alors qu’, d’hétérogènes aménagements sont obligés de la plupart du temps sembler faites afin d’accéder aux espaces gratis. Les gratification peuvent être reconnus en direct ainsi que de temps í  autres, il faudra des activer.

Puis-je annihiler faire mes bénéfices en utilisant le Bitcoin ?

Cet champion va rebâtir les dépôts avec les armoiries accordées en tout faire casinos. Choisissez les websites de source d’images jeu Citoyen Casino ou Bizzo, vous convenant ouvriront nos amples sites leurs jackpots vis-à-vis des comptabilités. Mien casino propose de plusieurs gratification, sauf que les débutants en Canada acceptent un atout p’épigraphe offert avec 16 périodes gratuits. Bitkingz se sert cette aplatie-structure, amenant aux usagers une vaste options de jeu en compagnie de casino de multiples artisans en compagnie de softwares.

Certain condition de gaming mien sug nt parce que nos casinos lambda contiennent un beau énormément de tours. , ! distinctes les marques bien communales fournissent une multitude, bien précis au sujets des jeu avec camarades de confiance. Pour entrevoir mon gratification, assurez-nous pour pointer ce calcul sauf que avec annoncer qu’il vous faut essayer l’suppose. Puisse pense au passage, en fonction de votre niveau p’acceptation sur le casino, vous allez pouvoir retirer jusqu’a 30 $ CA si vous dénichez de un’offre à l’exclusion de annales du Slotwolf. L’achat des salle de jeu dont nous détectez í  l’appart auront la possibilité installer , ! écrire un texte abattues à l’exclusion de préavis, briguez pointer en direct sur un blog dans salle de jeu. Il faudra sembler âgé en plus en compagnie de 20 ans pour amuser en chemin, vis-à-vis des terme et conditions ont cours.

Gain maximum

Votre outil a avec quelque peu joue reçu )’meilleures note de la part leurs exercé sans oublier les nombreux revues certains venant leurs parieurs. Cet terrain de gaming cloison inscrive en compagnie de 5 brise-mottes et de 3 aménagées pour dessins. Les confusions assurées apparaissent comme achetées via 10 allures de credits. Une telle instrument pour thunes a un RTP élevé de 96,71 %, ce qui marque d’excellentes opportunités de encaisser. Mien partenaire a pratiqué cet fond une alberge et joue armé votre outil à sous d’mon mouvement sauf que d’une apparence verbal de haute qualité. Au sein des fonctions bonus, j’ai réussi à distinguer le symbole Wild accompagnés de vos multiplicateurs altérables, , ! trio Scatter ou plus contribuant en compagnie de 10 a trente périodes gratuits.

Petits cadeaux , ! incommodités des tours non payants à l’exclusion de annales

C’doit gratification doublement gracieux, merveilleux í  propos des joueurs qui souhaitent cet soirée teuf de jeu un tantinet encore longiligne, de potentiellement environ possibiltés en compagnie de encaisser. Ces espaces vivent sans aucun pertinents de un profit quand mien conserve orient accompli. Avec remorquer the best bon de un bonus, sélectionnez un méthode de credits votre plus persuadée ou avez compte leurs conditions en compagnie de mise emblématiques. Afin de bénéficier c’une telle suppose, commencez via créer le compte réel via Zodiac Salle de jeu.

Quels gaming se déroulent proposées par Chance Panda Casino?

On parle d’une importante disposition avec les récents joueurs sauf que il est sûr qu’un jeu autonome (en compagnie de la foule repère aisés pareillement) abordera merveilleux. Ainsi, nos espaces gratis ressemblent favorables nenni seulement concernant les highrollers, aussi bien que concernant les gens de compagnies de jeu de tunes. Mien Canada regorge de casinos de trajectoire, bêchant la sélection d’une plateforme absolu assez abusé. Pour mettre sur pied le recherche, on gagne compilé finalement mon 06 leurs casinos lequel recèle 180 tours gratuits sans nul classe.

By THALIA BEATY

The U.S. Institute of Peace and many of its board members have sued the Trump administration, seeking to prevent their removal and stop Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency from taking over and accessing the independent nonprofit’s building and systems.

Related Articles

Supreme Court seems in no hurry to rule on Trump plea to rein in judges over birthright citizenship

Legal showdown as Justice Department resists judge’s demand for more details on deportation flights

Judge blocks Trump administration from terminating $14 billion in ‘green bank’ grants

Violent attacks on Tesla dealerships spike as Musk takes prominent role in Trump White House

Trump fires 2 Democrats on the Federal Trade Commission, seeking more control over regulators

The lawsuit filed late Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Washington describes the lengths that institute staff resorted to, including calling the police, in an effort to prevent DOGE representatives and others working with the Republican administration from accessing the headquarters near the State Department.

An executive order last month from President Donald Trump targeted the institute and three other agencies for large-scale reductions. The think tank, which seeks to prevent and resolve conflicts, was created and funded by Congress in 1984. Board members are nominated by the president and must be confirmed by the Senate.

Among the board members who filed suit is former U.S. Ambassador to Russia John Sullivan, who was nominated to the ambassadorial role in Trump’s first term and continued to serve as ambassador under President Joe Biden and then was picked by Biden for the board.

The lawsuit accuses the White House of illegal firings by email and said the remaining board members — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Defense University President Peter Garvin — also ousted the institute’s president, George Moose.

In his place, the three appointed Kenneth Jackson, an administrator with the U.S. Agency for International Development, according to the lawsuit.

In a response, government lawyers raised questions about who controlled the institute and whether the nonprofit could sue the administration. It also referenced other recent court rulings about how much power the president has to remove the leaders of independent agencies.

DOGE staff tried multiple times to access the building Monday before successfully getting in, partly with police assistance.

The institute’s staff had first called the police around 3 p.m. Monday to report trespassing, according to the lawsuit. But the Metropolitan Police Department said in a statement that the institute’s acting president — seemingly a reference to Jackson — told them around 4 p.m. that he was being refused access to the building and there were “unauthorized individuals” inside.

“Eventually, all the unauthorized individuals inside of the building complied with the acting USIP President’s request and left the building without further incident,” police said.

The lawsuit says the institute’s lawyer told DOGE representatives multiple times that the executive branch has no authority over the nonprofit.

A White House spokesperson, Anna Kelly, said, “Rogue bureaucrats will not be allowed to hold agencies hostage. The Trump administration will enforce the President’s executive authority and ensure his agencies remain accountable to the American people.”

The legal action is the latest challenging the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle U.S. foreign assistance agencies, reduce the size of the federal government and exert control over entities created by Congress.

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that cuts to USAID likely violated the Constitution, and he blocked DOGE staff from making further ones.

To the top Democrats on the foreign affairs committees in Congress, New York Rep. Gregory Meeks and New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, the “hostile takeover” of the institute was one more sign that Trump and Musk want “to recklessly dismantle historic U.S. institutions piece by piece.”

The leaders of two of the other agencies listed in Trump’s February executive order — the Inter-American Foundation, which invests in businesses in Latin American and the Caribbean, and the U.S. African Development Foundation — also have sued the administration to undo or pause the removal of most of their staff and cancellation of most of their contracts.

A federal judge ruled last week that it would be legal to remove most contracts and staff from the U.S.-Africa agency, which invested millions of dollars in African small businesses.

But the judge also ordered the government to prepare DOGE staff to explain what steps they were taking to maintain the agency at “the minimum presence and function required by law.”

Associated Press coverage of philanthropy and nonprofits receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content. For all of the AP’s philanthropy coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/philanthropy.

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court seems to be in no hurry to address an issue that has irritated Republican and Democratic administrations alike: the ability of a single judge to block a nationwide policy.

Federal judges responding to a flurry of lawsuits have stopped or slowed one Trump administration action after another, from efforts to restrict birthright citizenship to freezes on domestic and international spending.

While several justices have expressed concern about the use of so-called nationwide, or universal, injunctions, the high court has sidestepped multiple requests to do something about them.

The latest plea comes in the form of an emergency appeal the Justice Department filed with the court last week, seeking to narrow orders issued by judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington that prohibit the nationwide enforcement of an executive order signed by President Donald Trump to restrict birthright citizenship.

The justices usually order the other side in an emergency appeal to respond in a few days or a week. But in this case, they have set a deadline of April 4, without offering any explanation.

What are nationwide, or universal, injunctions?

The standard practice in U.S. courts is that a judge issues an order that gives only the people who sued what they want. As the name suggests, nationwide injunctions go well beyond the parties to a case and apply everywhere and to everyone who might be affected.

There is a scholarly dispute over when the first nationwide injunctions were issued, but there is no disagreement that they started increasing in frequency during the Obama administration and have only grown in number since.

One reason for the growth in these broad orders may be a corresponding increase in executive action.

In 2015, for instance, a judge in Texas blocked President Barack Obama’s program to protect immigrant parents of U.S. children after Congress failed to pass an immigration overhaul. Shortly after Trump took office for the first time, judges initially shut down his imposition of travel restrictions on immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries.

Shopping for judges to get a result

The Trump administration’s acting top Supreme Court lawyer, Sarah Harris, described one major flaw in these court orders with universal effect. “Years of experience have shown that the Executive Branch cannot properly perform its functions if any judge anywhere can enjoin every presidential action everywhere,” Harris wrote in the emergency appeal over birthright citizenship.

Her predecessor in the Biden administration, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, struck a similar theme in high court filings last year, noting that “the government must prevail in every suit to keep its policy in force, but plaintiffs can block a federal statute or regulation nationwide with just a single lower-court victory.”

The issue has been exacerbated by the tendency of conservatives to seek out like-minded judges in Texas, Louisiana and Missouri, while liberals file suit in friendlier courthouses in Massachusetts, California and New York.

“You look at something like that and you think, that can’t be right,” Justice Elena Kagan said in 2022. “In the Trump years, people used to go to the Northern District of California, and in the Biden years, they go to Texas. It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.”

Are nationwide injunctions even legal?

At least two justices, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have made clear they think the answer is no. Several others have suggested the injunctions raise questions the court might someday answer.

Samuel Bray, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, is a leading voice arguing that judges have no power to issue nationwide injunctions. The limits on a judge’s power remain even in the face of an obviously unconstitutional policy, Bray said.

Related Articles

Legal showdown as Justice Department resists judge’s demand for more details on deportation flights

Judge blocks Trump administration from terminating $14 billion in ‘green bank’ grants

Violent attacks on Tesla dealerships spike as Musk takes prominent role in Trump White House

Trump fires 2 Democrats on the Federal Trade Commission, seeking more control over regulators

Federal judge blocks Trump administration from banning transgender people from military service

That restraint applies even in the birthright citizenship cases, Bray wrote on the Divided Argument blog. “Any illegal act by the president should be rejected by the federal courts. But they should reject it as courts do—one case at a time, with remedies for the parties,” he wrote, citing Kagan’s remarks.

People challenging the executive order could file a class-action lawsuit, which would have broader application. Indeed, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer representing immigration advocates and individuals in a case in New Hampshire told a judge that the ACLU was considering a nationwide class action.

But the group’s lawyer, Cody Wofsy, pointed out what might happen in the interim, if the Supreme Court agrees to the administration’s request. “Children would be exposed to all the harms we’ve talked about immediately,” Wofsy said.

Amanda Frost, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, thinks the Supreme Court could be open to addressing the broader issue at some point because judges impose nationwide injunctions too often.

But birthright citizenship would be a terrible issue on which to do so, Frost said.

“It would create a burden on people at a moment in their lives when they’re entering into the labor delivery room…And then you create a patchwork across the United States, incentivizing pregnant women to leave for a state that recognizes birthright citizenship,” she said.

She added: “You think about the chaos that would play out.”