One of the core arguments was that the Feds can't pull funds for their stated purpose, which was to encourage/force schools to open ("The government has provided no reason for its abrupt and unexplained shift. That is unsurprising, since... its purpose—as expressed by Acting Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Ken Cuccinelli—is to 'encourage schools to reopen.' In essence, Defendants are using the vulnerability of international students as leverage to force a broad reopening for reasons wholly disconnected from the underlying statute and regulation... Defendants have thus violated the APA by promulgating a policy based on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider.").
I think there's a good chance that the admin backed down here so that there's no pre-existing precedent implying (or explicitly stating) that they can't use purse strings and other extra-congressional-intent mechanisms to force K12 to open in August.
CONGRESS used the threat of withdrawal of highway funds to get all 50 states to lower the speed limit to 55.
From my quote of the amicus brief: Defendants have thus violated the APA by promulgating a policy based on factors WHICH CONGRESSS DID NOT INTEND IT TO CONSIDER
( the all-caps is for emphasis because I can't see italics well anymore and HN doesn't have bold; I'm not yelling :) )
For something like this, it really matters which part of the federal government takes the action.
The important part is maintaining separation of powers... making sure the Executive branch doesn't overstep its authority into the legislative branch territory.
Not quite. What it did was offer highway funds in exchange for the 55 speed limit. The difference is threatening to withdraw pre exisiting funds in exchange for the state doing something is illegal but introducing new funds is legal.
Please cite what you're referencing next time - it was not clear from your comment on a current event if this is something that also happened recently, or in the last century.
I'm not sure about that, I've seen many states with 65mph and 75mph highway speed limits ... but you might be thinking about the drinking age, which was raised to 21 years in all states by withdrawing highway funds if they did not pass such laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_...
I think they backed down because the language of the emergency rule lifting the in-person course requirement said it would remain “in effect for the duration of the emergency.”
The Covid-19 National Emergency Declaration is still in force.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Trump admin is working on an Executive Order. It would get around a lot of the arguments Harvard/MIT were making related to improper administrative rule-making by ICE.
We will find out as the Panda vs Wolf case proceeds. This case was filed today and challenges President's recent proclamation banning entry for some H visa holders.
One of the core arguments was that the Feds can't pull funds for their stated purpose, which was to encourage/force schools to open ("The government has provided no reason for its abrupt and unexplained shift. That is unsurprising, since... its purpose—as expressed by Acting Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Ken Cuccinelli—is to 'encourage schools to reopen.' In essence, Defendants are using the vulnerability of international students as leverage to force a broad reopening for reasons wholly disconnected from the underlying statute and regulation... Defendants have thus violated the APA by promulgating a policy based on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider.").
I think there's a good chance that the admin backed down here so that there's no pre-existing precedent implying (or explicitly stating) that they can't use purse strings and other extra-congressional-intent mechanisms to force K12 to open in August.