Trump admin must process education grants "without delay"
A federal judge preserved his ability to enforce the ruling even if the Senate passes a budget bill restraining his contempt power.
The rights we once took for granted are under review – through the courts. Get the full story now – with All Rise News, you’ll get information you can use to push back!
Trump’s Department of Education must process hundreds of millions of dollars in grant money “without delay” to a coalition of 16 states and Washington, D.C., a federal judge ruled on Tuesday.
The ruling marked the second time U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos ordered the Trump administration and its Education Secretary Linda McMahon to process Covid-19 relief funds to schools.
After the first ruling on May 6, the Trump administration sent a follow-up letter to the states with an “end-of-the-pandemic” justification to keep withholding the money. New York Assistant Attorney General Andrew Amer sought emergency relief, calling the administration’s new rationale “specious.”
“It’s not for the agency to second-guess Congress’s determination [to award grant money],” said Amer, one of the lawyers who helped obtain a roughly half-billion civil fraud judgment against Donald Trump last year.
Ramos agreed, and the judge preserved his power to enforce his ruling even if the GOP-controlled Senate passes Trump’s mammoth budget bill. Amer told the judge that a provision inside the bill seeks to strip judges of their enforcement power.
“Is this the so-called Big Beautiful Bill?” Ramos asked.
“It’s been called that,” Amer replied drily.
GOP lawmakers slipped the following language into Section 70302 of the resolution to stop the growing number of contempt proceedings against the Trump administration:
“No court of the United States may enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), whether issued prior to, on, or subsequent to the date of enactment of this section.”
Significantly, the language allows for contempt proceedings to proceed if a security deposit is posted at the time of an injunction or restraining order.
Upon the states’ request, Judge Ramos ordered New York to post a nominal security of $1,000.
This is a breaking and developing story.
Good news! Interesting to hear -- " A federal judge preserved his ability to enforce the ruling even if the Senate passes a budget bill restraining his contempt power." Will this become 'standard operating procedure'? If a judge doesn't include a bond (security) -- what will that means? "Upon the states’ request, Judge Ramos ordered New York to post a nominal security of $1,000."