Your cart is currently empty!
Tag: Judge
Judge halts Trump administration cuts to public health research in some states
CNN
—
A federal judge on Monday paused cuts that the Trump administration had made to funding for public health research, issuing a temporary restraining order that applies only in the 22 Democratic-led states that brought a lawsuit challenging the reduction in funding.
US District Judge Angel Kelley ordered more briefing in the case, with a hearing scheduled for February 21.
The Democratic attorneys general of 22 states alleged in the lawsuit filed Monday that the newly announced cuts “will mean the abrupt loss of hundreds of millions of dollars that are already committed to employing tens of thousands of researchers and other workers, putting a halt to countless life-saving health research and cutting-edge technology initiatives.”
“Not only that, but the sudden cut of funding will have ripple effects into the private sector as it disrupts numerous partnerships with private institutions,” said the lawsuit, filed in Massachusetts’ federal court.
The complaint added to the pile of quick-moving court proceedings challenging President Donald Trump’s aggressive reshaping of the federal government.
Under the challenged plan, funding from the National Institutes of Health known as indirect cost rates would be capped at 15 percent, from an average of more than 27 percent. Some research institutions, including Harvard, have rates higher than 60%, according to the NIH, which said in a post on X last week that the policy would save more than $4 billion a year.
Those rates are aimed at covering the various overhead costs – like facility costs, regulatory compliance and administrative support – that research institutions must account for to support their research. If the administration’s plans to cut those rates are not halted, the “cutting edge work to cure and treat human disease will grind to a halt,” the lawsuit said.
“This is an attempt to eliminate funding that supports medical and public health innovation at every research institution in the country,” Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell said at a news conference Monday. “The administration’s recent directive would abruptly cap indirect costs at 15%, significantly less than what is required to conduct advanced medical research. The administration knows that.”
Campbell noted that the Trump administration had proposed similar cuts in 2017, “and the Republican-controlled Congress at the time passed a law demanding continued stable funding for medical research. That law is still in effect, whether the president believes it or not.”
The attorneys general bringing the case said they expected private research institutions to bring their own lawsuit challenging the administration’s plans, as the states’ lawsuit would cover public research institutions.
NIH’s parent agency, the US Department of Health and Human Services, has the authority to make these changes, its director of communications, Andrew Nixon, told CNN via email – and believes it could even impose them retrospectively “for current grants and require grantees to return the excess overhead they have previously received, but we have currently chosen not to do so to ease the implementation of the new rate; however, we will continue to assess this policy choice and whether it is in the best interest of the American taxpayer.”
“Our Administration wants to help America have the best research in the world, and we believe that by ensuring that more cents on every dollar go directly to science and not to administrative overheard, we can take another step in that direction,” Nixon said.
Asked for comment on the lawsuit, the White House defended the new policy.
“Contrary to the hysteria, redirecting billions of allocated NIH spending away from administrative bloat means there will be more money and resources available for legitimate scientific research, not less. The Trump administration is committed to slashing the cottage industry built off of the waste, fraud, and abuse within our mammoth government while prioritizing the needs of everyday Americans,” spokesman Kush Desai said.
A federal judge has put a stop to the Trump administration’s attempts to slash public health research funding in certain states. The ruling comes as a victory for advocates of public health and medical research, who have been fighting against the proposed cuts.The Trump administration had planned to reduce funding for public health research in states like California, New York, and Massachusetts, which are known for their robust medical research programs. However, the judge’s decision has halted these cuts, ensuring that critical research projects can continue to receive the necessary funding.
This ruling is a significant win for public health advocates and researchers, who rely on government funding to support their vital work. It also sends a strong message that the government cannot arbitrarily cut funding for critical research projects without proper justification.
As we continue to navigate the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and other public health crises, it is essential that we prioritize and support research efforts that can help us better understand and combat these threats. This ruling is a step in the right direction towards ensuring that public health research remains a top priority for our government.
Tags:
- Trump administration cuts
- Public health research
- Judge halts
- Government funding
- Health research funding
- Public health initiatives
- Federal budget cuts
- Public health protection
- Government research programs
- Legal ruling on health funding
#Judge #halts #Trump #administration #cuts #public #health #research #states
Federal Judge Orders White House to Keep Money Flowing to 22 States
Judge McConnell’s Friday order does not block the Trump administration from continuing its review, only from defunding those programs that fail its tests in the states that sued — New York, California, Illinois, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin, along with the District of Columbia.
In that sense, it may create a divide between Democratic states that will continue to have funds flowing and Republican states that will still face uncertainty.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Rob Bonta, attorney general for California, said in a statement that he was “grateful for the court’s decision.” He accused the Trump administration of “intentionally creating chaos” and “attempting to sow fear and confusion in our communities.”
The series of executive orders mandating reviews of existing programs are still in force. The litmus tests range from the specific, such as ending assistance to sanctuary cities that decline to help with immigration enforcement and rescinding subsidies for electric vehicles, to the opaque, such as defunding “infiltration” of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, “environmental justice” and schools that teach “subversive, harmful, and false ideologies.”
The Supreme Court already answered the question of whether the president can withhold congressionally allocated money in 1975, said David A. Super, a professor at Georgetown Law. That was when the court found that President Richard Nixon could not direct the Environmental Protection Agency to withhold money allocated to cities for sewers and sewage treatment under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
In a recent ruling, a federal judge has ordered the White House to continue providing funding to 22 states that were at risk of losing critical financial support. The decision comes after the White House attempted to cut off funding to these states, citing disagreements over policy and budgetary issues.The judge’s ruling ensures that essential services, such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure projects, will continue to receive the necessary funding to operate effectively. This decision is a major victory for the residents of these 22 states who rely on these services to maintain their quality of life.
The White House has been given a deadline to comply with the judge’s order and resume providing funding to the affected states. Failure to do so could result in further legal action and potential consequences for the administration.
Overall, this ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of maintaining financial support for critical services that impact the lives of millions of Americans. It is a testament to the power of the judicial system in upholding the rule of law and ensuring that essential services are not disrupted due to political disagreements.
Tags:
- Federal judge ruling
- White House funding
- State funding
- Money flow
- Legal decision
- Government funding
- Court mandate
- Financial support
- State budgeting
- Judicial order
#Federal #Judge #Orders #White #House #Money #Flowing #States
Jennifer Crumbley’s appeal: Judge expected to rule on request for new Oxford High School shooting trial
PONTIAC, Mich. (FOX 2) – An Oakland County judge is expected to make a decision Friday as Jennifer Crumbley, the Oxford High School shooter‘s mother, seeks a new trial.
Watch the hearing live above at 9 a.m.
Jennifer and her husband, James Crumbley, were both convicted by juries of four counts of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to 10-15 years in prison for their role in the Nov. 30, 2021 school shooting. The charges were brought against the couple after their then-15-year-old son brought a gun to school and killed four people.
Judge to rule on Jennifer Crumbley’s appeal request
An Oakland County judge will hear arguments Friday before ruling on motions filed by Jennifer Crumbley’s attorney as she seeks a new trial and release from prison. Crumbley was convicted of involuntary manslaughter after her son killed four classmates at Oxford High School.
Last month, Jennifer’s attorney, Michael Dezsi, filed an appeal to her sentence, saying that her trial was “riddled with errors.” Issues raised in the appeal included the prosecution not disclosing agreements with key witnesses to jurors, publicity around the case, and Jennifer being convicted for not controlling her minor son, despite him being convicted as an adult.
However, on Thursday Judge Cheryl Matthews denied most of the motions filed by Dezsi. In court Friday, she will only hear arguments about the proffer agreements before making a final ruling.
Jennifer Crumbley wants out of prison
The backstory:
While the appeal is pending, Dezsi says Jennifer should be allowed to post bond and be released from prison because she “has committed no crime, has never harmed anyone, and is certainly not a flight risk.”
He went on to call the prosecutors “overreaching,” and said the case was the result of “attempts to pin the failings of a nation on the back of a parent.”
According to Dezsi, sentencing guidelines recommended a sentence as short as 43 months, but Jennifer received more than a decade behind bars.
“Having Mrs. Crumbley locked up at the Michigan Department of Corrections’ Women’s Huron Valley facility not only casts a dark shadow over the justice system but rewards the prosecution of a fabricated crime, setting a very dangerous precedent,” Dezsi said in a press release.
Dezsi argued that evidence was withheld from the trial, including information that two key witnesses who worked at the school entered into cooperation agreements to testify against Jennifer. According to Dezski, these agreements were not disclosed.
According to the appeal filing, the agreements should have been shared with the jury because the employees – Nick Ejak and Shawn Hopkins – interacted with the shooter the day of the crime, and had the chance to search his backpack before the shooting, but did not.
“These findings merely demonstrate why Hopkins and Ejak were given Proffer Agreements in the first place, because they had obvious criminal exposure,” Dezsi wrote. “To the extent that these witnesses testified so as to shift blame away from themselves and onto the parents, the jury should have been made aware of those Proffer Agreements so that they could more accurately and fully assess their credibility.”
Jennifer’s defense believes knowledge of the agreements would have helped with cross-examining Ejak and Hopkins. However, the prosecution denies that the pair were offered anything to testify.
In the court filing, Dezsi wrote that the prosecution argued that Jennifer did not control her minor child. However, he noted that her child was convicted and sentenced as an adult.
“These theories are both factually inconsistent and mutually exclusive amounting to a violation of Mrs. Crumbley’s due process rights under both federal and state law,” he wrote.
Dezsi also argued that the jury was told that they could convict Jennifer even if their verdict was not unanimous.
The other side:
After the appeal was filed, the Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office responded to the appeal, saying in part that ” James and Jennifer Crumbley are the rare, grossly negligent exception, and twenty-four jurors unanimously agreed that they are responsible for the deaths of Hana, Madisyn, Tate, and Justin. Holding them accountable for their role is one important step in making our schools safer.”
The Source: Information in this story is from previous FOX 2 reporting and court records.
Oakland County Prosecutor McDonald doesn’t think Crumbley parents prosecution set precedent
The mass school shooting in Georgia echoes the 2021 Oxford incident – with allegations that the suspect’s father was given the gun he used as a gift.
Jennifer Crumbley, the mother of Ethan Crumbley, one of the teenagers responsible for the tragic shooting at Oxford High School in Michigan, has filed an appeal requesting a new trial for her son. The appeal argues that the original trial was unfair and that crucial evidence was not properly considered.Now, the judge is expected to rule on this request for a new trial. Many are closely following this case, as it raises important questions about accountability and justice in cases of school shootings.
Stay tuned for updates on the judge’s decision and the ongoing legal proceedings surrounding this heartbreaking tragedy. #OxfordHighSchool #JenniferCrumbley #newtrial #justice
Tags:
- Jennifer Crumbley
- Oxford High School shooting
- Appeal ruling
- New trial request
- Judge decision
- Michigan court case
- Legal proceedings
- School shooting aftermath
- Criminal defense strategy
- Law enforcement investigation.
#Jennifer #Crumbleys #appeal #Judge #expected #rule #request #Oxford #High #School #shooting #trial
Judge keeps one issue alive in Jennifer Crumbley’s quest for new trial
On the eve of a crucial hearing, an Oakland County judge denied several of Jennifer Crumbley’s claims that she did not get a fair trial, though she kept one key issue alive: confidential agreements the prosecution struck with two key school witnesses.
On Friday, Oakland County Judge Cheryl Matthews is scheduled to hear from both sides to determine whether Crumbley — the mother of the Oxford High School school shooter — should get a new trial, have her conviction overturned, or let it stand. But Matthews will take up only one claim that has been raised by Crumbley’s new defense lawyer: that the prosecution allegedly, intentionally withheld evidence from the defense, and therefore committed prosecutorial misconduct.
At issue are confidential agreements, known as proffer agreements, that the prosecutor’s office made with two school witnesses, assuring them that what they told investigators would not be used against them. The Free Press disclosed these agreements last year, triggering an appeal that now may rest with this issue.
The witnesses are a school counselor and dean of students who testified against Crumbley at trial, and helped the prosecution advance its theory that the shooter’s parents, more than anyone else, could have prevented the November 2021 tragedy.
The defense, however, maintains that the school witnesses also were to blame, but got protection, which the jury never got to hear about. Jennifer Crumbley’s appellate attorney, Michael Dezsi, argues that the agreements are an unlawful withholding of evidence, and warrants either giving his client a new trial, or throwing out her conviction.
The prosecution counters that the proffer agreements did not promise immunity or leniency, and therefore did not have to be released. It also is urging the judge to let the convictions stick, maintaining Crumbley was convicted fair and square for failing to take even the simplest of steps to prevent a tragedy.
More:Victims’ families see verdict as a milestone but not the finish line
Jennifer and James Crumbley made history last year after separate juries convicted them of involuntary manslaughter for the deaths of four students killed by their son: Hana St. Juliana, 14; Tate Myre, 16; Justin Shilling, 17, and Madisyn Baldwin, 17. Six other students and a teacher also were injured.
The Crumbleys were accused, in separate trials, of buying their son a gun, failing to properly secure it, and never disclosing it to the school during a pivotal meeting with school officials the morning of the shootings.
The Crumbleys maintain they had no idea their son was going to shoot up his school, that the gun at issue was not his to use freely and that it was hidden in an armoire dresser, unloaded, with the bullets located in a separate drawer.
The shooter, who was 15 at the time of the rampage, pleaded guilty to all his crimes and is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. He is appealing, as are his parents.
In seeking a new trial or reversal, Jennifer Crumbley’s appellate lawyer has raised several issues that he alleges led to an unfair trial against his client, though Matthews concluded they did not have merit in her Thursday opinion. Those issues are likely to be raised on appeal before the Michigan Court of Appeals. They include:
More:Jury foreperson: Jennifer Crumbley was last adult with gun. That ‘hammered it home’.
- Claims that the prosecution wrongfully accused the Crumbleys of having a “legal duty” to protect the Oxford students from their son. The defense maintains there is no such legal duty recognized in Michigan, and that the general public owes no such duty to anyone — much like a person who fails to stop a person from jumping in front of a train can’t be criminally charged.
- Claims that the prosecution wrongfully asserted two inconsistent theories by charging the shooter as an adult, yet accusing his mom of failing to control her minor son. The defense argues the prosecution can’t have it both ways. The judge disagreed.
- Claims that Jennifer Crumbley had an ineffective lawyer at trial.
- Claims that the judge wrongfully instructed the jury that it could convict Jennifer Crumbley without being in unanimous agreement. There were two theories under which the jury could convict: that Crumbley either failed to properly secure the weapon, or, that she failed to control her son. The jury was instructed that it did not have to agree as to which theory applied. The defense maintains that was improper and violated Crumbley’s rights. The judge disagreed.
The hearing deciding the fate of the convictions is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. in Oakland County Circuit Court.
Contact Tresa Baldas: tbaldas@freepress.com
.
In a recent court hearing, the judge ruled to keep one crucial issue alive in Jennifer Crumbley’s quest for a new trial. The issue at hand revolves around the defense’s claim that crucial evidence was mishandled by law enforcement during the investigation into the Oxford High School shooting.Despite the prosecution’s arguments against granting a new trial, the judge’s decision to focus on this specific issue gives hope to Crumbley and her legal team. This development could potentially open the door for a reexamination of the case and bring new evidence to light.
As the legal battle continues, the outcome of this pivotal issue could have far-reaching implications for Crumbley’s future. Stay tuned for updates on this developing story as more details emerge from the courtroom.
Tags:
Jennifer Crumbley, new trial, Judge, legal issues, court ruling, appeal, defense strategy, criminal case, legal system, courtroom drama, justice system, legal news
#Judge #issue #alive #Jennifer #Crumbleys #quest #trialJudge to hear arguments over new trial request in Jennifer Crumbley case
An Oakland County judge denied most of a request from Jennifer Crumbley to have her acquitted or given a new trial in connection to the Oxford High School shooting.
WATCH THE FRIDAY HEARING LIVE HERE
Watch below: Michael Dezsi, new attorney for Jennifer Crumbley, speaks on motion to toss conviction
Michael Dezsi, new attorney for Jennifer Crumbley, speaks on motion to toss conviction
Crumbley, the mother of the shooter, was found guilty of four counts of involuntary manslaughter last year. Her husband, James Crumbley, was convicted on the same charges. They were each sentenced to 10-15 years in prison.
In December, Jennifer and her new attorney, Michael Dezski, filed a motion to get the sentence overturned.
However, on Thursday, Oakland County Judge Cheryl Matthews denied most of the request. She did not make a decision on whether or not Jennifer should get a new trial based on proffer agreements the prosecution made with two witnesses in the case.
Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald and the prosecution team gave those agreements to Oxford High School counselor Shawn Hopkins and former dean of students Nicholas Ejak, so the statements they provided to prosecutors could not be used to file charges against them.
They were the last administrators to meet with the shooter before his rampage in the school.
Watch below: Digging into the proffer agreements given to witnesses in the Crumbley trials
Looking into the proffer agreements used in the Crumbley trials
“It is an agreement between a prosecutor’s office and an individual that whatever they say as long as they’re truthful will not be used against them,” Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan President Arthur Weiss said.
The prosecution reportedly never gave those agreements to Jennifer’s first defense attorney, Shannon Smith.
On Friday, Matthews will hear arguments over the proffer agreements during a motion hearing.
A judge is set to hear arguments over a new trial request in the high-profile case of Jennifer Crumbley, the mother of Ethan Crumbley, the teenage suspect in the Oxford High School shooting.Jennifer Crumbley’s defense team has filed a motion requesting a new trial, citing alleged errors in the trial proceedings that they argue could have affected the outcome of the case. The prosecution has countered that the trial was fair and that there is no basis for a new trial.
The judge will hear arguments from both sides and will ultimately decide whether to grant or deny the motion for a new trial. The outcome of this hearing could have significant implications for Jennifer Crumbley’s legal future.
Stay tuned for updates on this developing story as the hearing unfolds.
Tags:
- Jennifer Crumbley case
- New trial request
- Judge hearing arguments
- Legal proceedings
- Court update
- Criminal defense
- Michigan court case
- Parental responsibility
- School shooting
- Legal system scrutiny.
#Judge #hear #arguments #trial #request #Jennifer #Crumbley #case
Judge temporarily blocks part of Trump administration’s plans to freeze federal aid
CNN
—
A federal judge on Tuesday afternoon temporarily blocked part of the Trump administration’s plans to freeze all federal aid, a policy that unleashed confusion and worry from charities and educators even as the White House said it was not as sweeping an order as it appeared.
The short-term pause issued by US District Judge Loren L. AliKhan prevents the administration from carrying through with its plans to freeze funding for “open awards” already granted by the federal government through at least 5 p.m. ET Monday, February 3.
The judge’s administrative stay is “a way of preserving the status quo” while she considers the challenge brought by a group of non-profits to the White House plans, AliKhan said.
“The government doesn’t know the full scope of the programs that are going to be subject to the pause,” AliKhan said after pressing an attorney for the Justice Department on what programs the freeze would apply to. AliKhan is expected to consider a longer-term pause on the policy early next week.
The White House budget office had ordered the pause on federal grants and loans, according to an internal memorandum sent Monday.
Federal agencies “must temporarily pause all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance,” White House Office of Management and Budget acting director Matthew Vaeth said in the memorandum, a copy of which was obtained by CNN, citing administration priorities listed in past executive orders.
The memo specifies the pause will not affect Social Security or Medicare benefits, nor does it include “assistance provided directly to individuals.”
The order sent chills through organizations, both public and private, that rely on federal grants and loans for their operations, but the White House insisted the concern was misplaced.
“This is not a blanket pause on federal assistance and grant programs from the Trump administration,” Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in her first White House briefing.
Leavitt said the pause was directed more at Democratic priorities rather than making across-the-board cuts, and she said all agencies could make a case to the administration to keep their funding.
“If they feel that programs are necessary and in line with the president’s agenda, then the Office of Management and Budget will review those policies,” said Leavitt.
Leavitt declined to directly answer questions Tuesday about whether Medicaid funding would be affected by the order.
For several hours on Tuesday, state Medicaid agencies were unable to access federal funds for the health insurance program that covers more than 72 million low-income Americans. However, during the afternoon, states started regaining access to the funding system.
Connecticut’s Department of Social Services, which had told CNN that state Medicaid officials could not log into the system earlier in the day, said in the afternoon that access was restored. Medicaid policy experts also told CNN they were hearing reports of additional states being able to sign in.
Just before 3 p.m., Leavitt posted on X, “The White House is aware of the Medicaid website portal outage. We have confirmed that no payments have been affected – they are still being processed and sent.”
“We expect the portal will be back online shortly,” she posted.
Leavitt’s comments followed the Office of Management and Budget issuing a Q&A on Tuesday afternoon stating “mandatory programs like Medicaid and SNAP (food stamps) will continue without pause.”
The temporary loss of access prompted some Democratic lawmakers to lash out at the Trump administration.
“My staff has confirmed reports that Medicaid portals are down in all 50 states following last night’s federal funding freeze,” Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, posted on X on Tuesday afternoon. “This is a blatant attempt to rip away health insurance from millions of Americans overnight and will get people killed.”
At the top of the Department of Health and Human Services page for Payment Management Services (PMS), a notice was posted Tuesday in red, saying: “Due to Executive Orders regarding potentially unallowable grant payments, PMS is taking additional measures to process payments. Reviews of applicable programs and payments will result in delays and/or rejections of payments.”
Less than 24 hours after the administration’s pause in funding was announced, several non-profits filed suit in federal court, asking a judge to stop the Trump administration’s decision.
“The Memo fails to explain the source of (the Office of Management and Budget’s) purported legal authority to gut every program in the federal government,” the lawsuit states.
The complaint – whose plaintiffs include the National Council of Nonprofits and the American Public Health Association – requested a temporary restraining order to keep the memo from being implemented.
The memo was slated to take effect at 5 p.m. ET Tuesday. It marks the latest move by the Trump administration to exert control over federal funding, even that which has already been allocated by Congress.
The funding pause also applies to “other relevant agency activities that may be implicated by the executive orders, including, but not limited to, financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal,” according to the memo.
The budget office “may grant exceptions allowing Federal agencies to issue new awards or take other actions on a case-by-case basis,” according to the memo.
The memo calls on agencies to submit to OMB “detailed information on any programs, projects or activities subject to this pause” by February 10.
The information that agencies must send to administration leaders is laid out in a spreadsheet obtained by CNN. It lists more than 2,000 programs and requires agencies to document whether each program has any funding related to undocumented immigrants, climate policy, diversity programs or abortion.
Hundreds of government programs are under review, the document shows, including emergency grain storage assistance for farmers, the Head Start program for preschool education, cancer center support grants and even a program covering the cost of caskets for deceased veterans with no next of kin.
The agencies are required to provide their responses to the Office of Management and Budget in less than two weeks.
How much money the federal government could save through the pause was not immediately clear. “It’s certainly well into hundreds of billions of dollars – and in the trillions if grants to state governments are included,” said Brian Riedl, a senior fellow with the Manhattan Institute, a center-right think tank.
Federal grants to state governments topped $1 trillion for the first time in 2022, according to an analysis by the Pew Charitable Trusts.
“Because the White House can legally pause – but not cancel – this funding, it would not notably reduce the $1.8 trillion budget deficits,” Reidl said. “And ultimately, current spending on targeted ‘DEI’ and foreign aid spending is not large enough to significantly reduce deficits. Recipients may be hit hard, but in terms of deficit reduction, this is more of a gimmick.”
Word of the White House’s order came Monday evening without further explanation from the Trump administration, leading charities that receive government grants and loans to question which organizations will be affected.
Some Head Start programs were unable to access the federal system they use to draw down their federal grant funding, which could have forced some to close their doors as early as Wednesday, Tommy Sheridan, deputy director of the National Head Start Association, told CNN on Tuesday. But by midafternoon, prior to the first hearing in a case challenging the Trump administration’s decision, Head Start programs were able to access their federal funding.
Head Start serves nearly 800,000 low-income children from birth to age 5 and their families.
“Some programs that I just spoke with are having the discussions and trying to figure out, are they going to be able to open their programs tomorrow or not?” Sheridan said, adding that if programs shutter, it could affect parents’ ability to work.
The primary source of federal funding for senior nutrition programs, such as Meals on Wheels, is the Older Americans Act Nutrition Programs, which is a grant. So, if the memo applies to this act, “this would presumably halt service to millions of vulnerable seniors who have no other means of purchasing or preparing meals,” Jenny Young, spokesperson for Meals on Wheels America, told CNN on Tuesday.
“Seniors will panic not knowing where their next meals will come from,” said Young.
The Association of American Universities, which is composed of America’s 71 leading research universities, including Notre Dame and Georgia Tech, said Tuesday it is “still working to assess” the impact of the pause.
Member universities “earn the majority of competitively awarded federal funding for research that improves public health, seeks to address national challenges, and contributes significantly to our economic strength, while educating and training tomorrow’s visionary leaders and innovators,” the association said.
The pause on federal grants and loans could lead to a “complete pausing of the work” done by local health departments and organizations, such as the National Association of County and City Health Officials, CEO Lori Tremmel Freeman said.
“These are not just grants for research or things that can be temporarily put on hold, they’re often grants for real activities that are occurring daily,” Freeman said Tuesday.
Sen. Patty Murray of Washington and Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut – the top Democratic appropriators in Congress – wrote a letter to the White House on Monday night outlining their “extreme alarm” with the idea of a broad pause in grants.
“The scope of what you are ordering is breathtaking, unprecedented, and will have devastating consequences across the country,” the lawmakers wrote. “We write today to urge you in the strongest possible terms to uphold the law and the Constitution and ensure all federal resources are delivered in accordance with the law.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also quickly criticized the pause.
“Congress approved these investments and they are not optional; they are the law,” the New York Democrat said in a statement Monday night. “These grants help people in red states and blue states, support families, help parents raise kids, and lead to stronger communities.”
Schumer added that the action jeopardizes “billions upon billions of community grants and financial support that help millions of people across the country.”
“It will mean missed payrolls and rent payments and everything in between: chaos for everything from universities to non-profit charities,” he said.
This story has been updated with additional details.
CNN’s Phil Mattingly, Samantha Waldenberg, Jeff Zeleny, Manu Raju and Rebekah Riess contributed to this report.
In a recent legal development, a federal judge has blocked part of the Trump administration’s plans to freeze federal aid. The administration had announced its intention to freeze billions of dollars in federal aid, including funds for health care, food assistance, and housing programs.However, the judge’s ruling temporarily halts this freeze, ensuring that essential aid continues to flow to those in need. This decision comes as a relief to many individuals and families who rely on these programs to make ends meet.
While the legal battle is far from over, this ruling is a step in the right direction towards protecting vulnerable communities and ensuring that they have access to the support they need. Stay tuned for further updates on this important issue. #FederalAid #TrumpAdministration #LegalNews
Tags:
- Trump administration
- Federal aid
- Temporary injunction
- Judge ruling
- Government assistance
- Legal challenge
- Freeze on aid
- Court decision
- Public assistance programs
- Government funding
#Judge #temporarily #blocks #part #Trump #administrations #plans #freeze #federal #aid
What’s next after judge halts Trump’s funding freeze, study finds cannabis may impair working memory, Brittney Griner goes to Dream
Good morning, all. The Lunar New Year begins today. Here’s how billions of people will welcome the . Now, on to the news.
Subscribe to get this newsletter in your inbox each morning.
NEED TO KNOW
Ken Cedeno/Reuters
The latest on Trump’s funding freeze
A federal judge temporarily blocked the White House’s federal funding freeze minutes before it was slated to take effect yesterday as lawmakers, public officials and average Americans struggled to determine the affected programs.
The judge’s order: After hearing arguments from nonprofits and public health groups, U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan issued a “brief administrative stay” blocking the suspension of funds until at least Feb. 3, when another hearing will be held. [The Hill]
A chaotic day: Across the U.S., staff reported issues accessing payment websites for Medicaid and the school readiness program Head Start. The White House said the portals would be back online “shortly.” Here’s what to know about other affected programs. [AP/CBS News]
Legal challenges: The order is likely to face more lawsuits, some of which may cite the Impoundment Control Act, which regulates the president’s power over the budget. Trump’s pick for his budget office has called the law unconstitutional. [NBC News]
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT
Getty Images
The nation’s report card
New data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress showed that U.S. children are falling further behind on reading scores and making little improvement in math, with both scores still below pre-pandemic levels. [ABC News]
Marijuana and memory
A new study found that more frequent marijuana use might damage working memory — the ability to retain and use information in the short-term — adding scientific evidence to long-standing beliefs about regular cannabis use. [CNN]
N.J. drone mystery
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that most of the drones spotted over New Jersey last year were authorized by the FAA for research, among other reasons. “This was not the enemy,” she said. [NBC News]
The Mercury shake it up
It’s the end of an era: The Phoenix Mercury finalized deals to acquire Alyssa “the Engine” Thomas from the Connecticut Sun, and bid farewell to 10-time All-Star Brittney Griner, who’s headed to the Atlanta Dream. [Yahoo Sports]
Rachael tells all
On an episode of the Call Her Daddy podcast, Rachael Kirkconnell shared details behind her surprise breakup with former Bachelor Matt James, which he announced nearly two weeks ago. Here’s what she said. [Us Weekly]
WHAT’S HAPPENING TODAY
In the rink, the Flyers go for a third straight win against the Devils at 7 p.m. ET on TNT. [NBC Sports]
On the court, the Bulls face the Celtics, their evenly matched conference foes, at 7:30 p.m. ET on NBA League Pass. [AP]
On the tube: The Challenge All Stars: Rivals, in which 26 competitors will be teamed up with their biggest enemy from previous seasons, airs at 8 p.m. ET on MTV. Meet the cast. [Variety]
And don’t forget to: Read your daily horoscope. Play the Crossword. Check the forecast in your area.
TODAY IN HISTORY
Illustration: Yahoo News; photo: Rick Stewart/Al/Getty Images
In 1995, the San Francisco 49ers became the first team in the NFL to win five Super Bowls after beating the San Diego Chargers 49-26. However, they’re not currently the team with the most Super Bowl titles — the New England Patriots and Pittsburgh Steelers are tied with six each. [CBS News]
3 QUESTIONS
…about Trump’s tariffs
President Trump recently said he’d keep his campaign promise to impose new tariffs on certain countries. I asked Andrew Romano, who reported on what that could mean for consumers, to talk about them.
Divya: Remind me: What are tariffs and what’s Trump’s plan around them?
Andrew: Tariffs are taxes on imports paid by the companies doing the importing, not by the countries sending goods to the U.S. By Feb. 1, Trump has promised to impose a 25% tariff on goods from Canada and Mexico, and an additional 10% on Chinese imports to address migration and drug trafficking concerns.
Divya: Which products are Trump’s tariffs likely to affect and how?
Andrew: If a 25% tax is added every time a part, product or raw material enters the U.S., a lot of things will get more expensive as companies pass the added cost to consumers. Experts predict they’ll lead to higher prices on things like cars and gas, beer, avocados and even real estate.
Divya: Trump imposed tariffs in his first term. How does his plan now differ from what he did then?
Andrew: Last time, Trump slapped big tariffs on Chinese goods and imported steel and aluminum. That helped him negotiate new trade deals, but forced U.S. consumers to pay more without bringing jobs back home. No one knows yet if he’ll go through with new ones, or if they’re just a negotiating tool.
Go deeper: Here’s what Canada and Mexico have said about the proposed tariffs.
FEEL-GOOD MOMENT
Sam Riber/SWNS
Sam Riber recently proposed to his girlfriend, Lissy Alden, during a surprise re-creation of the airplane scene from The Wedding Singer. Alden said yes. “I realized what was happening and just felt so happy,” she said. Watch the sweet moment. [People]
Have a great day! See you tomorrow.
P.S. Before you go, your daily advice: Do you warm up your car before driving when it’s cold? You actually don’t have to, except in certain cases. [USA Today]
About The Yodel: The Yodel is a morning newsletter from Yahoo News.
Start your day with The Yodel to get caught up on weather, national news, politics, entertainment and sports — in four minutes or less.
Get The Yodel right in your inbox
Did you like this morning’s newsletter? Subscribe to have it sent to you on weekdays.
After a federal judge halted former President Donald Trump’s attempt to freeze funding for a key program, the future remains uncertain. The program in question, which provides assistance to low-income households, was at risk of losing crucial funding before the judge’s ruling.In other news, a new study has found that cannabis use may impair working memory. The study, published in a prominent scientific journal, highlights the potential negative effects of marijuana on cognitive function.
Meanwhile, in the world of sports, basketball star Brittney Griner has been traded to the Atlanta Dream. The move comes as a surprise to many fans, as Griner has been a key player for the Phoenix Mercury for several seasons. It will be interesting to see how she adjusts to her new team and how this trade will impact the upcoming WNBA season.
Stay tuned for more updates on these and other important developments.
Tags:
- Trump funding freeze
- Cannabis study
- Working memory impairment
- Brittney Griner
- Dream basketball team
- Legal news update
- Political decision analysis
- Marijuana research findings
- Athlete news
- WNBA trade rumors
#Whats #judge #halts #Trumps #funding #freeze #study #finds #cannabis #impair #working #memory #Brittney #Griner #Dream
Kelsea Ballerini is the newest judge to join ‘The Voice’
She’s a multi-Grammy nominated music artist and Grand Ole Opry inductee, and now Kelsea Ballerini is sharing her skills with future stars as the newest coach on NBC’s singing competition show “The Voice”.
Ballerini says she felt like she manifested becoming a coach on “The Voice” after she filled in for Kelly Clarkson a few years ago. The 31-year-old has joined the coaching lineup with fellow music artists John Legend, Michael Bublé, and Adam Levine. Ballerini said it’s just like three big brothers.
“We just had a really beautiful, instant rapport with each other,” Ballerini said.
While “The Voice” focuses on building the music careers of contestants, Ballerini’s own career is in high gear as she headlines her first arena tour, which includes a stop in Detroit. She will be performing at Little Caesars Arena on Tuesday, February 4th.
Fans can also see Kelsea Ballerini in action when season 27 of “The Voice” kicks off with a 2-hour premiere Monday, February 3rd at 8 p.m. on NBC.
Copyright 2025 by WDIV ClickOnDetroit – All rights reserved.
Exciting News: Kelsea Ballerini Joins ‘The Voice’ as Newest Judge!Country music star Kelsea Ballerini is set to join the hit singing competition show, ‘The Voice’, as a judge for the upcoming season. Ballerini, known for her chart-topping hits and powerful vocals, will bring her expertise and unique perspective to the show as she searches for the next big music sensation.
Fans of ‘The Voice’ are buzzing with excitement over Ballerini’s addition to the judging panel, and many are eager to see how she will stack up against the other seasoned judges. With her fresh approach and undeniable talent, Ballerini is sure to make a big impact on the show and help discover the next generation of music superstars.
Be sure to tune in to the upcoming season of ‘The Voice’ to see Kelsea Ballerini in action and witness the incredible talent that she helps uncover. This is definitely a season you won’t want to miss!
Tags:
Kelsea Ballerini, The Voice, judge, newest, talent show, reality TV, music competition, country singer, NBC, singing competition, celebrity judge, TV show
#Kelsea #Ballerini #newest #judge #join #VoiceNFL keeps taking baby steps toward full embrace of a sky judge
For the past 25 years, the NFL’s approach to expanding the replay-review process has gone like this: Wait for a non-reviewable situation to create a controversy, and then expand replay to cover it in the future.
This bit-by-bit approach has accelerated in recent years, with replay assist providing a more efficient and expedient way to make real-time fixes without the delay of a full-blown replay review.
Now, as the NFL approaches the offseason with a plan to add to the replay function currently non-reviewable plays like facemask calls and unnecessary roughness for quarterback slides, someone needs to take a step back and ask the obvious question.
Why not use it for everything?
Replay review and replay assist helps to smooth out the disconnect between the things that the officials see at full speed with the naked eye (while also trying not to be trampled) and the things everyone else sees on 4K flatscreens.
The solution is simple. Put a member of the officiating crew in the booth and have that person collaborate with the on-field officials based on things that can be seen via video and missed by the folks who are intermingled with the players. It would be a full member of the crew, wearing black and white stripes and regularly captured in the broadcast. The person knows the rules. The person has worked on the field for multiple games. The person can direct flags to be dropped or picked up, and to rectify any other mistakes made by folks who, despite doing their best, can’t see everything.
And, yes, the entire replay process cries out for more transparency. The UFL has perfected it. The NFL still shuns even the suggestion of it.
At a time when more and more people think the NFL is rigged (it’s not), shining a light on the conversations between the replay booth and the referee will enhance the integrity of and public confidence in the game of professional football — especially at a time when the NFL is stuffing millions in its pockets from gambling sponsorships without reinvesting enough of that money to ensure the highest degree of accuracy in the calls made and not made.
Maybe the league is getting there, one annual meeting at a time. At some point, the ongoing expansion of replay review and replay assist will prompt someone to realize that everything should be reviewable.
Hopefully, the league will get there sooner than later. Ideally, it’ll happen in March.
The NFL has been making small strides toward implementing a sky judge in games, and it’s becoming increasingly clear that the league is moving closer to fully embracing this concept.For those unfamiliar with the term, a sky judge is an additional official who is stationed in the press box and has the authority to review and overturn on-field calls in real-time. This role is designed to provide an extra layer of officiating to ensure that the correct calls are made and to prevent egregious errors from impacting the outcome of a game.
While the NFL has been hesitant to fully commit to the idea of a sky judge, there have been some recent developments that suggest a shift in mindset. During the 2020 season, the league experimented with adding an official known as a “senior technology advisor” to assist with replay reviews. This move was seen as a step toward eventually incorporating a sky judge into regular-season games.
Additionally, the NFL has reportedly been discussing the possibility of implementing a sky judge on a permanent basis in the future. The league has recognized the benefits of having an additional set of eyes on the field and understands the importance of getting calls right, especially in crucial moments of a game.
While the NFL may not be ready to fully embrace a sky judge just yet, the fact that the league is taking baby steps toward this concept is a positive sign. As technology continues to advance and officiating standards evolve, it’s only a matter of time before a sky judge becomes a permanent fixture in NFL games.
Tags:
- NFL sky judge implementation
- NFL officiating changes
- Sky judge in professional football
- NFL game review process
- Benefits of sky judge in the NFL
- Improving NFL officiating
- Sky judge impact on game outcomes
- NFL referee technology advancements
- NFL rule changes
- Enhanced officiating in the NFL
#NFL #baby #steps #full #embrace #sky #judge