A coalition of 24 states and Washington, D.C., is suing the Trump administration, claiming that it unlawfully dismantled the AmeriCorps grant program, an independent federal agency that funds volunteer efforts throughout the United States. The lawsuit came in response to billionaire Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) cutting the agency’s funding by $400 million and terminating about 85% of its workforce as part of the administration’s ongoing efforts to gut the federal bureaucracy.

States joining the filing include California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Michigan.

In the 69-page complaint, the state attorneys general state that the administration’s stripping of resources is an “unlawful effort to dismantle AmeriCorps” that usurps the power of the legislative branch by rendering the agency ineffective and unable to pursue the goals set forth and funded by Congress.

“The Administration’s abrupt decision to dismantle AmeriCorps flouts Congress’s creation of AmeriCorps and assignment of agency duties; usurps Congress’s power of the purse and thereby violates the Constitution’s separation of powers; and arbitrarily and capriciously — without any reasoned analysis — vitiates the agency’s ability to function consistent with its statutory mission and purpose,” the 69-page complaint states. “It also violates a provision of AmeriCorps’ statutory appropriation that requires the agency to make ‘significant changes to program requirements, service delivery or policy only through public notice and comment rulemaking.’”

The suit asserts that if the Trump administration wants to put an end to the agency, it is “free to ask Congress” to do so, but the executive branch “cannot simply terminate the agency’s functions by fiat or defund the agency in defiance of administrative procedures, Congressional appropriations, and the Constitutional separation of powers.”

“The Executive Branch violates the Take Care Clause where it declines to execute or otherwise undermines statutes enacted by Congress and signed into law or duly promulgated regulations implementing such statutes,” the attorneys general wrote, adding, “The President is without authority to set aside congressional legislation by executive order.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta said that Trump and Musk’s actions in “turning away tens of thousands of volunteers who want to serve their communities” were “unlawful,” in a news briefing on the lawsuit Tuesday afternoon.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Law students sue EEOC over investigative…

Law Students

Law students sue EEOC over investigative letters sent to 20 BigLaw firms

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 17, 2025, 9:43 am CDT

Three law students have filed a lawsuit asking a federal court to order the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to withdraw investigative letters sent to 20 BigLaw firms and to return and delete information that it gathered from them.

The April 15 suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, says the EEOC acted beyond its authority when it demanded that law firms turn over sensitive personal information about their applicants and employees dating back six to 10 years.

The law students, who filed the suit using pseudonyms, are represented by Democracy Forward, a nonprofit legal services organization, according to a April 15 press release.

Law.com and Reuters have coverage.

Reuters called the suit “the latest pushback against President Donald Trump’s efforts to rein in major law firms and eradicate workplace diversity, equity and inclusion programs.”

The plaintiffs are three law students who either applied to or worked at one of more of the 20 targeted firms. Information sought from the firms includes “sensitive personal information about plaintiffs and their employment history: their name, sex, race, contact information, academic performance and compensation,” the suit says.

Now that the EEOC and Andrea Lucas, the acting EEOC chair, have demanded the information, the suit says, the plaintiffs “are deeply worried that their data will be divulged, and that they may be targeted as a result.”

The law creating the EEOC provides that an investigation can be conducted only after a specific charge has been filed, the suit says. The law also “imposed strict confidentiality requirements on those charges and investigations, as well as on efforts to obtain voluntary compliance,” according to the suit.

Those requirements have not been met, according to the allegations.

The EEOC sought the information in a March 17 letter and announced the action in a press release. The targeted firms are: Perkins Coie; Cooley; Reed Smith; A&O Shearman; Debevoise & Plimpton; Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; Goodwin Procter; Hogan Lovells; Kirkland & Ellis; Latham & Watkins; McDermott Will & Emery; Milbank; Morgan, Lewis & Bockius; Morrison & Foerster; Ropes & Gray; Sidley Austin; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; White & Case; and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr.

Six of the targeted firms have since reached deals with Trump to avoid becoming a target of punitive executive orders that would withdraw their lawyers’ security clearances and could imperil their representation of government contractors.

According to Law.com, those six firms are: Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, A&O Shearman, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, Milbank and Skadden. It’s unclear whether agreements reached with Skadden and Milbank resolve the EEOC request. The other four firms agreed to compliance monitoring as part of those deals, but it’s not known if they agreed to provide the requested information.

See also:

EEOC chair requested ‘extensive’ info from law firms on DEI practices and hiring; did it cross a line?

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

The two sons of a slain Georgia man have sued the woman charged with killing him for wrongful death. The defendant, Suzanne Renee Mericle, 61, opened fire through the bedroom door after James David Barron, 68, backed away from an argument, according to the complaint viewed by Law&Crime.

“This family has suffered an unspeakable tragedy and this civil suit has been initiated to protect the family and their legal rights,” said the plaintiff statement, according to The Brunswick News. “The Barrons kindly request that their privacy be respected during this difficult time. Our firm generally does not comment on pending litigation and this is particularly true in a case like this, where an investigation is still ongoing. Therefore, we have no further comment at this time.”

A group of journalists has sued the Trump administration over its efforts to shut down the Voice of America news network and other federally-funded global media organizations.

The lawsuit, filed Friday, names Kari Lake – the stalwart Arizona political candidate, election denier, and Donald Trump ally — along with the agency she oversees, the U.S. Agency for Global Media, which houses VOA, among the defendants. The plaintiffs allege that the administration’s massive cuts to the agency, which threaten thousands of jobs, violate their First Amendment free speech rights as well as the separation of powers, by taking a chain saw to an agency approved by Congress.

The VOA network — which is not broadcast within the U.S., but is heard by more than 350 million people worldwide each week — has long been on the president’s list of agencies to be targeted. In his March 15, 2025, executive order, Trump refers to the organization as “the voice of radical America” and asserts that under his watch, “taxpayers are no longer on the hook for radical propaganda.”

The order then goes on to cite multiple right-wing media organizations, including the Daily Caller and The Washington Free Beacon, as proof of VOA’s alleged “radical” agenda.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Law prof suspended over exam question, class…

First Amendment

Law prof suspended over exam question, class discussion can sue for First Amendment retaliation, 7th Circuit says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 13, 2025, 2:14 pm CDT

A federal appeals court has revived a First Amendment retaliation claim by a professor at the University of Illinois Chicago School of Law who used an “expurgated racial slur” on an exam question, leading to an investigation, required diversity training, a suspension and denial of a pay raise.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Chicago ruled Wednesday in a lawsuit by professor Jason Kilborn, whose 2022 suit was dismissed in December 2023.

His federal suit had alleged retaliation for constitutionally protected speech, due process violations of the 14th Amendment and state law violations.

A university professor’s academic speech is entitled to qualified First Amendment protection under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the 7th Circuit ruled Wednesday in an opinion by Judge Thomas Lee Kirsch II, an appointee of President Donald Trump during his first term.

“We conclude that Kilborn has plausibly alleged that his speech is constitutionally protected and reverse the dismissal of his claim,” the appeals court said.

Because the appeals court revived the retaliation claim, it also vacated a federal judge’s refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and ordered further consideration.

The university had found that Kilborn violated the harassment section of its nondiscrimination police after an investigation that followed the controversial exam question.

The December 2020 final exam in civil procedure included a hypothetical in which a plaintiff alleged that her managers had called her a “n- – – – -” and a “b- – – -.” Kilborn’s exam included only the first letter of the word followed by underlined blanks. Some students were upset by the question.

The university then investigated allegations that Kilborn created a racially hostile environment for minorities in a class that he taught two semesters earlier by commenting on “cockroaches” and a “public lynching.”

The cockroach comment was part of a discussion on why defendants sometimes settle frivolous cases. The media only covers frivolous cases when the defendant loses, not when the defendant wins, he said. Kilborn said defendants fear that the public will learn about losses in frivolous cases, and “then all the cockroaches come out of the walls, they’re thinking, right?”

In the same discussion, Kilborn said, “I’m not subjecting my corporate bottom line to that public lynching; I’m sorry, that’s not the right word to use.”

In a different discussion on race-based traffic stops, the appeals court said, “Kilborn used an African American Vernacular English (AAVE) accent while repeating the lyrics of a Jay-Z song, which describes the pretextual stop of a young Black man (‘You was doin’ 55 in a 54.’).”

In response, the university refused to give Kilborn an across-the-board 2% merit raise and said he could not return the classroom until he completed an eight-week diversity training program.

Kilborn’s exam question, as well as other remarks investigated by the university, “address matters of public concern, notwithstanding the limited size of Kilborn’s audience,” the 7th Circuit said.

“The exam question was designed to give students experience confronting a highly charged situation that they may encounter in real-life practice and to be a continuation of the learning that occurred in the classroom,” Kirsch wrote. “The content, form and context of the exam question give no indication that it involved a matter of private concern, rather than serving broader pedagogical purposes. Kilborn’s in-class statements performed a similar function. They were designed to engage students and stimulate in-class discussion on topics of significant interest to the broader community, including frivolous litigation and pretextual police stops.”

Hat tip to Law360, which covered the decision.

See also:

UIC law prof must receive online diversity training, coaching before classroom return, letter says

Exam question wasn’t only offensive behavior of UIC law professor, according to internal investigation

Court dismisses part of UIC law prof’s civil rights lawsuit

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

The Trump administration has pushed through an “effective dismantling” of the Department of Education through massive layoffs, a lawsuit filed Thursday in Massachusetts federal court alleges.

On March 11, the agency announced a “nearly 50%” reduction in force (RIF) with a press release. Later that same day, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon told The Hill those planned terminations were the “first step” toward the “total shutdown” of her entire department.

The plaintiffs, in their 53-page lawsuit, say the agency’s plans are “equivalent to incapacitating key, statutorily-mandated functions” that cause “immense damage” to the educational systems of several states. The complaint alleges the would-be federal firing spree is illegal — in violation of both the U.S. Constitution and federal law.

Moreover, the filing argues, the ongoing and upcoming reductions in staffing amount to an unlawful end-run around congressional authority in order to advance President Donald Trump’s stated goal of shuttering the department in de facto if not de jure terms.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Supreme Court will decide whether family…

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court will decide whether family can sue over mistaken raid by FBI SWAT team

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 28, 2025, 11:49 am CST

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether the U.S. Constitution prevents a family from suing the FBI for its mistaken 2017 SWAT team raid of their Atlanta home.

At issue is whether the lawsuit is barred by the Constitution’s supremacy clause and by a liability exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act for federal employees’ discretionary acts undertaken to advance federal policy.

“If the Federal Tort Claims Act provides a cause of action for anything, it’s a wrong-house raid like the one the FBI conducted here,” the cert petition filed by the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit public interest law firm, argues.

The Institute for Justice represents the plaintiffs, Curtrina Martin; her son (represented by Martin); and Martin’s partner, Hilliard Toi Cliatt.

The family members were awakened before dawn one morning in October 2017 by a flashbang grenade exploding in their living room. Martin’s 7-year-old son was separated from his mother while officers stormed the bedroom with guns drawn, according to the institute’s Jan. 27 press release.

Cliatt pushed Curtrina Martin into the closet and was reaching for his shotgun when an FBI agent threw him to the ground. FBI agents soon realized that they had raided the wrong place.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Atlanta ruled against the family in an unpublished decision in April 2024.

The Federal Tort Claims Act was enacted in 1946 to waive U.S. sovereign immunity and allow damages for certain torts of federal employees when there would be liability under the same circumstances in the state where the acts happened, according to SCOTUSblog and the government’s petition opposing certiorari. Most intentional torts, however, were not allowed.

The law was amended in 1974 to make clear that intentional actions of law enforcement officers could be the basis of suits, according to the Institute for Justice.

“But the FTCA includes a host of exceptions, and circuit courts can’t agree on when they apply,” the press release said.

The 11th Circuit ruled against the family on two grounds. First, the appeals court said intentional-tort claims covered by the law enforcement amendment—for false imprisonment, assault and battery—were nonetheless barred by the supremacy clause because they concern acts with some nexus to furthering federal policy.

No other circuit has taken this position, according to the Institute for Justice.

“The 11th Circuit has created a unique supremacy clause bar to the FTCA that overrides congressional intent,” the cert petition says.

Second, the appeals court barred claims for torts falling outside the law enforcement amendment—for trespass, interference with private property and infliction of emotional distress. The 11th Circuit held that the claims are barred by the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act, which bars claims arising from a government official’s performance of a duty or a function that involves discretion.

The appeals court reasoned that FBI agents had discretion in preparing for execution of a warrant, and their decisions are susceptible to policy analysis.

The courts are “badly split” over the discretionary function exception, the cert petition says.

The case is Martin v. United States. The SCOTUSblog case page is here.

Publications covering the cert grant include SCOTUSblog, Law.com and the Washington Post.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

The parents of a young Wisconsin man have sued Walgreens and pharmacy benefit manager OptumRx over their son’s death from an asthma attack after his medication price rose from $66 to $539.

Cole Schmidtknecht, 22, had lived with chronic asthma since he was an infant, his parents Shanon and William “Bil” Schmidtknecht said in a lawsuit filed in federal court. To combat the condition, Cole used a daily steroid inhaler as preventive medication. However, when the cost of his inhaler unexpectedly rose beyond what Cole was able to afford, he went without the medication for several days, according to the lawsuit.

Cole then suffered a severe asthma attack and died.

In the 35-page complaint filed on Jan. 21 against OptumRx, Inc., Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., and Walgreens Pharmacy, Cole’s parents explain that OptumRx is a “Pharmacy Benefit Manager” or “PBM”— one of a number of entities “that act as middlemen between health insurers, prescription drug companies, and pharmacies.”

The family further alleged that Optum is one of the nation’s three largest PBMs and is responsible for servicing drug prescription claims for over 66 million Americans.

Pregnant women across the country have been joining forces to file lawsuits against the federal government over the constitutionality of President Donald Trump‘s executive order ending birthright citizenship in the United States, according to court records.

Attorneys in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state have filed lawsuits on behalf of expecting parents in response to Trump’s order last week, which has been blasted as “blatantly unconstitutional” by federal judges as it runs into legal trouble.

Attorneys general of 18 states and two major cities, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., have also teamed up to challenge the order — filing a joint lawsuit last Tuesday, Jan. 21, in federal district court.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. SCOTUS will decide whether Medicaid beneficiaries…

U.S. Supreme Court

SCOTUS will decide whether Medicaid beneficiaries can sue over state’s defunding of Planned Parenthood

By Debra Cassens Weiss

December 23, 2024, 9:23 am CST

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to consider whether Medicaid beneficiaries can sue over South Carolina’s decision to defund Planned Parenthood.

Although federal law generally bars Medicaid from paying for abortions, it does allow payment to abortion providers for other medical services, SCOTUSblog explains. Planned Parenthood had provided birth control, cancer screenings and physical exams to low-income South Carolina residents before the state cut off all Medicaid funds for the organization in 2018, according to the group’s brief opposing cert.

Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and one of its Medicaid patients sued.

At issue is whether beneficiaries can sue under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act under an “any-qualified provider” provision of the Medicaid Act.

The law provides that “any individual eligible for medical assistance” under the law can obtain care from any institution ready and qualified to perform the services, according to a brief opposing cert by Planned Parenthood.

Besides SCOTUSblog, publications with coverage include the New York Times, the Washington Post and USA Today. How Appealing links to additional coverage.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Richmond, Virginia, had allowed the lawsuit, according to New York Times.

“This case is, and always has been, about whether Congress conferred an individually enforceable right for Medicaid beneficiaries to freely choose their health care provider,” the 4th Circuit said. “Preserving access to Planned Parenthood and other providers means preserving an affordable choice and quality care for an untold number of mothers and infants in South Carolina.”

Federal appeals courts are split on the issue of a private right of action, according to South Carolina.

“Whether a private party can drag a state into federal court for disqualifying a provider should not turn merely on where that state is located,” says the state’s cert petition.

But the brief opposing cert argues that there is no split because the two appeals courts that found no private right of action ruled in cases in which a medical provider was terminated for cause, a factor not present in the South Carolina case.

South Carolina is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal advocacy group.

“Taxpayer dollars should never be used to fund facilities that make a profit off abortion,” said Alliance Defending Freedom lawyer John Bursch in a statement cited by news coverage.

The case is Kerr v. Planned Parenthood.