The Ukrainian cabinet of ministers appointed a head of the Economic Security Bureau after weeks of stalling and mounting pressure from international partners.
An independent commission selected Oleksandr Tsyvinskyi, a veteran anti-corruption detective, on June 24. The cabinet of ministers was supposed to confirm him within 10 days, but repeatedly refused to do so.
Already last week, newly appointed Prime Minister Yuliia Svyrydenko signaled a course reversal on the confirmation following massive backlash to a July anti-corruption power-grab in Ukraine. The Ukrainian government officially confirmed Tsyvinskyi as head of the bureau Wednesday, a month after the official deadline passed.
“We look forward to the renewal of the Bureau’s work, the strengthening of the institution, and the achievement of a significant level of trust between the Bureau and Ukrainian entrepreneurs,” Svyrydenko wrote on social media.
The EU’s ambassador to Ukraine, Katarina Mathernova, reacted positively, saying: “I welcome appointment of Oleksandr Tsyvinskyy as Director of ESBU — a key reform for [EU] accession and IMF benchmark.”
The bureau investigates economic crimes and is especially important during wartime, Tsyvinskyi previously told POLITICO, when it must monitor Western aid and safeguard scarce public funds by cracking down on economic crime.
The government previously cited Tsyvinskyi’s father’s Russian citizenship as grounds for refusing his appointment, even though he previously acquired Ukrainian security clearance and has not spoken to his father in years.
Svyrydenko said last week that Tsyvinskyi would undergo polygraph testing before his appointment. Anti-corruption activists denounced the move as legally baseless and a face‑saving gesture after weeks of unjustified government stalling.
Since then, the European Commission and other international partners have publicly urged Ukraine to complete its reform commitments, including appointing the bureau head, in public rebukes.
Besides appointing Tsyvinskyi, Kyiv has accelerated other long-stalled reforms demanded since then.
On Monday, Svyrydenko announced that the government launched a selection process for a new head of the customs service, which Ukraine also promised to the EU and was required by law to do by the beginning of 2025.
Boris Johnson will face questions from MPs investigating whether he misled parliament over the partygate scandal next Wednesday at 2pm. The former prime minister will…
<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/woEfXI0SSmsXhl0JAcuYP3n9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Supreme Court allows Trump to halt millions in teacher training grants" title="Supreme Court allows Trump to halt millions in teacher training grants"> <img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Supremecourt-9-scaled-1-150x150.jpeg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Supreme Court allows Trump to halt millions in teacher training grants" title="Supreme Court allows Trump to halt millions in teacher training grants" style="float:right;" decoding="async" srcset="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Supremecourt-9-scaled-1-150x150.jpeg 150w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Supremecourt-9-scaled-1-570x570.jpeg 570w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Supremecourt-9-scaled-1-500x500.jpeg 500w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Supremecourt-9-scaled-1-1000x1000.jpeg 1000w" sizes="(max-width: 150px) 100vw, 150px" /><p><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-allows-trump-to-halt-millions-in-teacher-training-grants%2F&linkname=Supreme%20Court%20allows%20Trump%20to%20halt%20millions%20in%20teacher%20training%20grants" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-allows-trump-to-halt-millions-in-teacher-training-grants%2F&linkname=Supreme%20Court%20allows%20Trump%20to%20halt%20millions%20in%20teacher%20training%20grants" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-allows-trump-to-halt-millions-in-teacher-training-grants%2F&linkname=Supreme%20Court%20allows%20Trump%20to%20halt%20millions%20in%20teacher%20training%20grants" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-allows-trump-to-halt-millions-in-teacher-training-grants%2F&linkname=Supreme%20Court%20allows%20Trump%20to%20halt%20millions%20in%20teacher%20training%20grants" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_printfriendly" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/printfriendly?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-allows-trump-to-halt-millions-in-teacher-training-grants%2F&linkname=Supreme%20Court%20allows%20Trump%20to%20halt%20millions%20in%20teacher%20training%20grants" title="PrintFriendly" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_no_icon addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-allows-trump-to-halt-millions-in-teacher-training-grants%2F&title=Supreme%20Court%20allows%20Trump%20to%20halt%20millions%20in%20teacher%20training%20grants" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/supreme-court-allows-trump-to-halt-millions-in-teacher-training-grants/" data-a2a-title="Supreme Court allows Trump to halt millions in teacher training grants">Share</a></p><p>The Supreme Court on Friday afternoon put on hold an order by a federal judge in Massachusetts that would have required the Department of Education to reinstate more than $65 million in grants that it terminated in February because they funded programs that included diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.</p>
<p>In an <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a910_f2bh.pdf">unsigned three-page opinion</a>, a majority of the court explained that the government likely would not be able to get the funds back once they were disbursed. Moreover, the majority added, the recipients of the funds would not be permanently harmed if the funds are withheld while the litigation continues.</p>
<p>The vote was 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts indicating that he would have denied the government’s request. Justice Elena Kagan dissented, calling the court’s ruling a “mistake.” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in an opinion joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, also dissented, writing that it was “beyond puzzling that a majority of the Justices conceive of the Government’s application as an emergency.”<span id="more-319473"></span></p>
<p>At issue in the case are two grant programs intended to address a nationwide shortage of teachers. The Department of Education canceled all but five of the 109 grants after reviews found “objectionable” diversity and equity training material in the recipient programs.</p>
<p>Eight states, led by California, filed a lawsuit in federal court in Massachusetts in early March. They contended that universities and nonprofits in their states had received grants through the programs, and that the Department of Education had violated the federal law governing administrative agencies when it ended those grants. </p>
<p>A federal district judge issued a temporary order that required the government to reinstate the grants that it had terminated in the states bringing the lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Myong Joun also prohibited the government from implementing other terminations in those states.</p>
<p>The United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit declined to put the district court’s order on hold while the government appealed, but it fast-tracked the appeal itself.</p>
<p>The Trump administration came to the Supreme Court on March 24, asking the justices to step in. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris asserted that unless the justices intervened, federal courts around the country will continue to exceed their powers “by ordering the Executive Branch to restore lawfully terminated grants across the government, keep paying for programs that the Executive Branch views as inconsistent with the interests of the United States, and send out the door taxpayer money that may never be clawed back.” Harris appealed to the justices to “put a swift end to federal district courts’ unconstitutional reign as self-appointed managers of Executive Branch funding and grant-disbursement decisions.”</p>
<p>California and the other states urged the court to stay out of the dispute. Joun, they said, “acted responsibly — entering a narrow and time-limited restraining order to preserve the status quo while moving rapidly to adjudicate” the state’s request for a preliminary injunction. The government cannot appeal the district court’s order, in any event the government’s appeal will be moot (that is, no longer a live controversy) by early April, they concluded.</p>
<p>In its order granting the Trump administration’s request on Friday, the majority first noted that although temporary orders like the one entered by Joun in this case are not normally appealable, it could nonetheless weigh in here because the order “carries many of the hallmarks of a preliminary injunction,” which can be appealed.</p>
<p>And the government is likely to show, the majority continued, that Joun lacked the power to order the government to make the payments under the federal law governing administrative agencies. Although that law waives the federal government’s general immunity from lawsuits, the majority explained, the waiver is a limited one that does not apply to court orders that would require the government to pay money for a contractual obligation. Instead, the majority continued, another federal law – the Tucker Act – gives another court, the Court of Federal Claims, the power to hear lawsuits arising from contracts with the United States.</p>
<p>Other considerations also weigh in favor of granting the government’s request, the majority wrote. On the one hand, the government contended (and the states do not dispute) that, once the funds are disbursed, it likely will not be able to recover them. By contrast, the majority stressed, the states have indicated that they have enough money to be able to continue their programs without the federal funding while the litigation moves forward.</p>
<p>Kagan complained that the government had not defended “the legality of canceling the education grants at issue” in this case. Moreover, she continued, the states challenging the termination of the grants do say that the termination of the grant “will force them—indeed, has already forced them—to curtail teacher training programs.” And the court’s conclusion that the dispute belongs in the Court of Federal Claims, rather than a federal district court, she suggested, is “at the very least under-developed, and very possibly wrong.”</p>
<p>More broadly, she wrote, the chance that the justices will make such a mistake increases when, as in this case, the justices act quickly, outside the normal briefing and argument schedule. She acknowledged that such fast action is sometimes necessary “despite the risk.” But for Kagan, “nothing about this case demanded our immediate intervention. Rather than make new law on our emergency docket,” she concluded, “we should have allowed the dispute to proceed in the ordinary way.”</p>
<p>Jackson called what she characterized as the majority’s “eagerness to insert itself into this early stage of ongoing litigation over the lawfulness” of the Department of Education’s actions “equal parts unprincipled and unfortunate.” Noting that Joun’s order will expire in just three days, she emphasized that it only bars the government from implementing a “mass termination” of grants; it does not prohibit the government from deciding, under its normal review process, to terminate individual grants.</p>
<p>Moreover, she continued, “there is no evidence that grantees have rushed to draw down the remaining $65 million in grant funds” in the 25 days since the order was entered. But if they did, she added, the government does have mechanisms to recover those funds.</p>
<p>Jackson criticized both the government’s decision to seek emergency relief without addressing the merits of the challenge and her colleagues’ decision to grant it, “If the emergency docket has now become a vehicle for certain defendants to obtain this Court’s real-time opinion about lower court rulings on various auxiliary matters, we should announce that new policy and be prepared to shift how we think about, and address, these kinds of applications.”</p>
<p>Finally, she insisted that the harm to the states challenging the grant terminations is – contrary to the majority’s suggestion – real. “In Massachusetts,” for example, she wrote, “Boston Public Schools has already had to fire multiple full-time employees due to this loss of grant-funding.”</p>
<p><em>This article was <a href="https://amylhowe.com/2025/04/04/supreme-court-allows-trump-to-halt-millions-in-teacher-training-grants/">originally published at Howe on the Court</a>. </em></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/supreme-court-allows-trump-to-halt-millions-in-teacher-training-grants/">Supreme Court allows Trump to halt millions in teacher training grants</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/BoAyEwS_xBO6g4HhQZH2xXn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Supreme Court considers parents’ efforts to exempt children from books with LGBTQ themes" title="Supreme Court considers parents’ efforts to exempt children from books with LGBTQ themes"> <img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-11-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Supreme Court considers parents’ efforts to exempt children from books with LGBTQ themes" title="Supreme Court considers parents’ efforts to exempt children from books with LGBTQ themes" style="float:right;" decoding="async" srcset="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-11-150x150.jpg 150w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-11-570x570.jpg 570w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-11-500x500.jpg 500w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-11-1000x1000.jpg 1000w" sizes="(max-width: 150px) 100vw, 150px" /><p><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-considers-parents-efforts-to-exempt-children-from-books-with-lgbtq-themes%2F&linkname=Supreme%20Court%20considers%20parents%E2%80%99%20efforts%20to%20exempt%20children%20from%20books%20with%20LGBTQ%20themes" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-considers-parents-efforts-to-exempt-children-from-books-with-lgbtq-themes%2F&linkname=Supreme%20Court%20considers%20parents%E2%80%99%20efforts%20to%20exempt%20children%20from%20books%20with%20LGBTQ%20themes" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-considers-parents-efforts-to-exempt-children-from-books-with-lgbtq-themes%2F&linkname=Supreme%20Court%20considers%20parents%E2%80%99%20efforts%20to%20exempt%20children%20from%20books%20with%20LGBTQ%20themes" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-considers-parents-efforts-to-exempt-children-from-books-with-lgbtq-themes%2F&linkname=Supreme%20Court%20considers%20parents%E2%80%99%20efforts%20to%20exempt%20children%20from%20books%20with%20LGBTQ%20themes" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_printfriendly" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/printfriendly?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-considers-parents-efforts-to-exempt-children-from-books-with-lgbtq-themes%2F&linkname=Supreme%20Court%20considers%20parents%E2%80%99%20efforts%20to%20exempt%20children%20from%20books%20with%20LGBTQ%20themes" title="PrintFriendly" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_no_icon addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-considers-parents-efforts-to-exempt-children-from-books-with-lgbtq-themes%2F&title=Supreme%20Court%20considers%20parents%E2%80%99%20efforts%20to%20exempt%20children%20from%20books%20with%20LGBTQ%20themes" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/supreme-court-considers-parents-efforts-to-exempt-children-from-books-with-lgbtq-themes/" data-a2a-title="Supreme Court considers parents’ efforts to exempt children from books with LGBTQ themes">Share</a></p><p>The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Tuesday in the first of two cases in April involving religion and public schools. In <em><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mahmoud-v-taylor/">Mahmoud v. Taylor</a></em> a coalition of parents from Montgomery County, Md., contend that requiring their children to participate in instruction that includes LGBTQ+ themes violates their religious beliefs and thus their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion.</p>
<p>Montgomery County, in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., is the largest school district in Maryland and one of the country’s most religiously diverse counties. The dispute before the justices on Tuesday began in 2022, when the county approved books featuring LGBTQ+ characters for inclusion in its language-arts curriculum. One book used for young children, <em>Pride Puppy</em>, tells the story of a puppy that gets lost during a Pride parade. Another book tells the story of a girl attending her uncle’s same-sex wedding.<span id="more-319870"></span></p>
<p>When the county announced in 2023 that it would not allow parents to opt to have their children excused from instruction involving the storybooks, a group of Muslim, Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox parents went to federal court. They contended that the refusal to give them the option to opt their children out violated their constitutional right to freely exercise their religion – specifically, their ability to instruct their children on issues of gender and sexuality according to their faith and to control when and how these issues are introduced to their children.</p>
<p>The lower courts rejected the parents’ request for an order that would temporarily require the county, while the litigation continued, to notify the parents when the storybooks would be used and give them a chance to opt out of instruction. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit explained that on the “threadbare” record before it, the parents had not shown that exposure to the storybooks compelled them to violate their religion.</p>
<p>The parents came to the Supreme Court in September, and the justices agreed to take up their case.</p>
<p>In their brief in the Supreme Court, the parents point to two different Supreme Court cases. First, they say, more than 50 years ago in <em><a href="https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep406/usrep406205/usrep406205.pdf">Wisconsin v. Yoder</a></em>, the justices “recognized ‘beyond debate’ the First Amendment right of parents ‘to guide the religious future and education of their children.’” This means, they say, that under the free exercise clause, parents can opt out of instruction that would “substantially interfere with their religious development.”</p>
<p>In <em>Yoder</em>, the parents observe, the court held that Amish parents did not have to send their children to school after the eighth grade, because they believed that doing so conflicted with their religion and way of life. Here, the parents say, they are merely seeking to be able to excuse their young children from one particular subset of the public schools’ instruction that “deliberately seeks to confound their religious values.”</p>
<p>And under the Supreme Court’s 1993 decision in <em><a href="https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep508/usrep508520/usrep508520.pdf">Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah</a></em>, the parents continue, the school board’s policy is unconstitutional because it is neither neutral nor generally applicable. The board of education, the parents stress, has “long allowed notice and opt-outs for any ‘instruction related to family life and human sexuality.’” But by contrast, the parents write, they cannot opt to have their very young children sit out discussions on “sexuality and gender identity during English class.” Moreover, they add, board members have displayed “explicit religious hostility” to the parents who have objected to the curriculum, suggesting that they were aligned with “white supremacists” and “xenophobes.”</p>
<p>The Trump administration filed a brief supporting the parents. Sarah Harris, then the acting solicitor general, told the justices that because the county will not notify the parents before the LGBTQ-themed storybooks are used or give them an opportunity to opt out of instruction using those books, parents can only comply with their religious obligations to their children by withdrawing their children from public school altogether. “That,” Harris contends, “is textbook interference with the free exercise of religion” – even if the parents’ children do not ultimately feel pressured or coerced by the instruction using the storybooks. </p>
<p>The Montgomery County Board of Education (along with the superintendent of schools, Thomas Taylor, and members of the board) counter that under both the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s cases interpreting the free exercise clause, the parents must show that either they or their children are being coerced to change their religious beliefs or practice. The Supreme Court, they contend, has never held that when parents opt to send their children to public schools, their children’s exposure to material to which their parents have religious objections is the kind of coercion needed to establish a claim under the free exercise clause, and it should not do so here.</p>
<p>The board cautions that accepting the parents’ argument that the lack of an opt-out option imposes a burden on their religious beliefs would “leave public education in shreds” “by entitling parents to pick and choose which aspects of the curriculum will be taught to their children.”</p>
<p>But in any event, the board continues, the parents have not shown that in this case that there has been any coercion. They have not provided any evidence, the board stresses, “that any parent or child was penalized for his or her religious beliefs, asked to affirm any views contrary to his or her faith, or otherwise prohibited or deterred from engaging in religious practice.”</p>
<p>The Supreme Court, the board writes, should not consider the parents’ argument that the policy is not neutral and generally applicable, because they did not make it in the lower courts. But in any event, the board adds, the policy is in fact both of those things: “It treats comparable religious and secular activity exactly the same; no opt-outs from ELA lessons using the storybooks are permitted.” And there is no indication that the policy was based on a hostility to religion. Instead, MCPS decided to stop the opt-outs because it received too many requests that were <em>not</em> based on religion.</p>
<p>A decision in the case is expected by late June or early July.</p>
<p><em>This article was originally published at Howe on the Court. </em></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/supreme-court-considers-parents-efforts-to-exempt-children-from-books-with-lgbtq-themes/">Supreme Court considers parents’ efforts to exempt children from books with LGBTQ themes</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>