[ad_1]
President Trump welcomed the governor to the White House in February looking for Maine Governor Janet Mills and demanded that he know if he would comply with the ban on transgender athletes in women’s sports.
“I comply with state and federal laws,” replied Mills.
Trump replied, “We are federal law.”
Mills’ farewell shot to Trump: “We’ll see you in court.”
Trump has excelled in his threat and this month began the process of Maine stripping the federal education dollar. Because in that state, trans students can now compete with female teams. The dispute quickly landed in court. This is a battle representing high stakes case studies in California, with laws allowing trans athletes in women’s sports.
The California Education Code “guarantees equal rights and opportunities for all students” and “prohibits discrimination based on gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation.”
Maine is not only based on Pro-LGBTQ+ policies, but also defends local management advantages and its state laws. Meanwhile, Trump opposes the embracing conservative ideological basis for controlling federal funds. Some view Maine as the forerunner of what California can expect. The Trump administration is trying to stop funding for federal education.
“We’re a law firm that has a wide support for Trump’s agenda,” said Jacob Hubert, president of the Liberty Justice Center. “The administration’s demands are appropriate, so California should follow them.”
Unlike Maine’s governor, California Gov. Gavin Newsom recently said it was “deeply unfair” for trans students to compete in women’s sports, but he has not acted to change the California law he previously supported.
Trump’s U.S. Department of Education has launched an investigation into the Inter-California Governance Federation. It oversees sports in over 1,500 high schools and explicitly threatens California’s funding, but cutting those dollars is yet to move.
California officials declined to comment on the ongoing investigation.
Federal funding for California education is difficult to arrive by calculating multiple channels, but some tallies amount to $16.3 billion per year, including school lunches, students with disabilities, and the Early Education Head Start program. The Los Angeles Unified School District estimates it will receive approximately $1.26 billion a year.
And in the present moment there are countless ways California can lose these dollars, based on the directions of the Trump administration.
One example is California law that prohibits schools from automatically notifying families about issues with gender identity of students and protects teachers from retaliation to support the rights of transgender students.
Federal officials allege that California law illegally violates the right to receive school records related to children and has launched an investigation by the California Department of Education to enforce it. Trump supports requiring schools to notify parents about issues involving gender identity and their children. California law must be overturned, the administration said.
Second, Trump bans diversity, equity and inclusion programs. All states and US territories are due to certify the decommissioning of the DEI by Thursday. Or you risk losing federal funds and assessing financial penalties. California is one of 16 states that refuse to do so.
Meanwhile, California universities and universities are facing losses in grant funding over DEI penalties and whether the Trump administration concludes that enough has been done to combat campus anti-Semitism suspicions.
Maine is the first state to face full throttling of K-12 funds from the Trump administration.
This month, the U.S. Department of Education launched a “management process” to cancel all education funds in Maine. According to a study by the Education Data Initiative, state K-12 schools receive approximately $358.4 million from the federal government, or $2,062 per student, annually. The department also referred the Maine Department of Education to the U.S. Department of Justice for “further enforcement action.”
Additionally, the USDA, which oversees the school’s food programs, quickly halted some of its funds to the nation. According to Maine, the withholding dollars blocked the diet of young children attending daycare programs, school-age children at risk outside school hours, and adults in daycare programs, according to court documents. There hasn’t been a cut-off for all school food aid yet, but Trump has said many times that he is trying to get back all federal dollars from the state.
Maine sought relief based on the first wave of cuts, and a US district judge granted a temporary restraining order. This means that the funds are to be restored until the court decides to litigate the merits.
The Trump administration recognizes only men and women in that they have the right to participate in sports teams, particularly women’s teams. According to court filings, eligible participants in the women’s team are defined as “people belonging to the gender that produces large germ cells.” In comparison, men have “small germ cells.”
Under the Trump administration, there is no gender identity-based discrimination protection. Therefore, transgender students are not entitled to participate in sports or locker rooms offered to women. According to the Trump administration, it is to allow trans students in these spaces to become illegal sexual discrimination against women.
The Trump administration has argued that Maine is violating the federal anti-discrimination laws and the protections implied by the US Constitution.
Nationally, more than half of the state already banned transgender youth from participating in sports. However, the majority of transgender students live in the state without such a ban, according to UCLA’s Williams Institute, a think tank that conducts research on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy.
Many jurisdictions that do not have a prohibition allow them to participate in sports that match their gender identity, including California. New York recently enacted a constitutional amendment that prohibits discrimination against gender identity. Some people argue that trans athletes protect women from exclusion from sports.
Is the main one an easier target?
Some critics speculate that targeting a small state like Maine first is a strategic choice.
“California is a much bigger state, and that makes a difference,” said Jesse Rothstein, professor of public policy and economics in Berkeley, California. “The administration wants states like Maine to work together and they can’t afford to go without money during the litigation period. Choosing to fight California is a big deal.”
He added that from a political standpoint, California has a congressional district (represented by Republicans) that rely on federal funds.
“I think that’s going to create political issues for an administration that we don’t face in Maine,” Rosstein said.
Nevertheless, Maine should win if the state can stick it out under the current court’s interpretation of federal law, Rosstein and several other critics of the Trump administration said.
“We don’t like the policy on transgender students in sports, so we don’t have a legal basis to withdraw our FoodAid funds,” Rosstein said.
Supporters of Trump’s actions argue that his policies will win in court. They say it has long been established that states can lose federal funds if they violate federal laws called Title IX, which govern areas such as sexual discrimination, sexual harassment, and sexual assault. Title IX protection applies to schools that receive federal funding, including exercise programs.
Hubert of the Liberty Judicial Center said:
The state doesn’t need to accept federal funding, but if that’s the case, he’s committed to eliminating the political ideology of education and a vice president and legal fellow at education, who describes as committing to broadly support Trump’s education policies, said he must follow federal rules.
“As a matter of regulation, statutory and constitutional law, they are on a very solid footing,” Parshall Perry said. And politically, “It’s very, very well voted for Republicans.”
However, there is disagreement among conservatives about whether Trump is going too far.
“First and foremost, the federal government should not have a business that funds education, free meals, etc,” said Neil McCluskey, director of the Center for Education Freedom of Education at Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. But “If the federal government is trying to fund things like education and nutrition, there are very few that funding attached, especially when it comes to value conflicts.”
For Maine, and perhaps for California, the legal counterattack would argue that the Trump administration is remaining in excess in two ways: violating laws that claim powers outside of their jurisdiction and govern the process of withdrawing funds.
These two defenses have been repeated in many previous legal actions against the Trump administration. California has at least 12 lawsuits underway to block various Trump actions.
California can place hope based on a legal parallel that goes back to Trump’s first term when it chases federal funds for so-called sanctuary cities opposed to Trump’s immigration policies. Trump’s efforts failed at the court at the time, noted Graeme Bouchy, director of UC Irvine’s Center for Democracy Studies.
In the current situation, “the legal debate to broadly enforce the state to do what you want is really no different,” Bouchy said. “What concerns some observers is that what has changed is the composition of the US Supreme Court, which is more leaning in favor of the Trump administration.”
If the Trump administration wins court against Maine, “they will almost certainly pursue California and move forward,” Boosy said. “And there’s nothing to stop them from rinsing, washing and repeating over and over again for immigration policies, environmental deregulation – you’ll give it a name.”
[ad_2]Source link
