Massachusetts
Appeals court weighs judge’s authority to restore Trump administration funding cuts to Harvard
BOSTON (AP) — A federal appeals court heard opposing arguments Monday over whether a judge had the authority to restore billions of dollars in funding that the Trump administration cut from Harvard University.
U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs ruled last year that the cuts amounted to illegal retaliation for Harvard’s rejection of the administration’s demands for changes to Harvard’s governance and policies.
The government had tied the move to Harvard’s delays in dealing with antisemitism, but the judge said the university’s federally backed research had little connection to discrimination against Jews.
The ruling restored more than $2.6 billion in research funding for the wealthy Ivy League school.
Though the money has resumed flowing, a Justice Department attorney told a three-judge panel of the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday that Burroughs lacked the legal power to require the administration to pay it.
The fight over the money was a contractual dispute that rightly belonged in a different court: the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, DOJ attorney Michael Velchik said. That court, which traces its origins to the mid-1800s, handles lawsuits by citizens seeking money from the federal government.
“The problem is that the district court lacked jurisdiction to order specific performance,” Velchik told the First Circuit. “That is the only thing that we’re complaining about here.”
Velchik cited recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings in support of his argument.
Paul Clement, an attorney for Harvard, said the case was not a straightforward contractual dispute, but raised broader issues of retaliation and discrimination. The district court’s decision restoring the funding was the “perfect remedy” for the violations it found, he said.
“These are not claims that really depend on the contract in any particular way,” he said.
First Circuit Judge Joshua Dunlap, a nominee of President Donald Trump, pressed Clement on whether Burroughs had in effect issued an order requiring payment and whether Harvard could make its broader legal claims without a contract.
The other judges on the panel, Sandra Lynch and Gustavo Gelpi, were nominated by Democratic presidents. The judges did not immediately rule.
Harvard’s lawsuit accused the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a series of demands in a letter from a federal antisemitism task force.
The letter demanded sweeping changes related to campus protests, academics and admissions. It was meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment on campus.
The administration also has sought to prevent Harvard from hosting foreign students and threatened to revoke its tax-exempt status in a clash watched widely across higher education.
During Monday’s arguments, Lynch expressed skepticism of the administration’s claim that Harvard had been indifferent to antisemitism.
“There are no findings. There was no investigation. There was simply an announcement, ‘We’re terminating against that backdrop,’” she said.
London
Former Prince Andrew files a legal action to quash warrants that led to searches of his residences
LONDON (AP) — Former Prince Andrew has filed a legal action challenging the warrants that authorized searches at two of his homes earlier this year as British police investigated allegations related to his links to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
A judicial spokesperson confirmed that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor had filed a claim with the High Court in London, and a hearing is scheduled for Thursday.
The Daily Telegraph previously reported that Mountbatten-Windsor had asked the court to determine whether Thames Valley Police acted lawfully in searching the former prince’s homes near Windsor Castle and on King Charles III’s Sandringham estate.
If the court were to find in Mountbatten-Windsor’s favor, it could prevent authorities from using evidence discovered during the searches in any prosecution of the former prince, attorney Mark Stephens said.
Stephens, of the Howard Kennedy firm in London, described the hearing as a preliminary skirmish in the broader legal battle.
The searches were conducted in February when Mountbatten-Windsor was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office, after allegations that the former prince shared sensitive information with Epstein during his time as the U.K.’s trade envoy.
Police questioned Mountbatten-Windsor for 11 hours before releasing him under investigation, meaning he was neither charged nor exonerated.
It was the first time in nearly four centuries that a senior British royal was placed under arrest, underscoring how deference to the monarchy has eroded in recent years.
Thames Valley Police said Monday that its investigation was continuing, even as it confirmed that the department was involved in legal proceedings about the search warrants. A department spokesperson declined further comment while those proceedings are underway.
The allegations against Mountbatten-Windsor came to light when the U.S. Justice Department released millions of pages of documents from its investigation into sex trafficking by Epstein and his connections to a network of wealthy, powerful men around the world.
Mountbatten-Windsor’s relationship with Epstein has been a source of embarrassment to the royal family for more than a decade and forced him to give up royal duties in 2019.
But as further revelations began to leak out of the U.S. investigation last year, the king moved to insulate the monarchy from the fallout by stripping his younger brother of his princely title.
After Mountbatten-Windsor was arrested, Charles departed from the “never complain, never explain” approach of his late mother, Queen Elizabeth II, and took the unusual step of issuing a statement on the investigation.
“Let me state clearly: the law must take its course,’’ he said at the time. “As this process continues, it would not be right for me to comment further on this matter.’’
Ohio
Former ‘American Idol’ singer Caleb Flynn awaits sentencing for wife’s murder
A former music pastor in Ohio who appeared briefly on “American Idol” was set to be sentenced Monday after a jury convicted him of murdering his wife while he was having an affair.
Prosecutors said Caleb Flynn, 40, staged a home invasion in February after shooting his wife, Ashley Flynn, a 37-year-old schoolteacher and volleyball coach. Flynn claimed she was killed by a burglar at their house in Tipp City, a suburb north of Dayton.
He sent a text message to his lover the night before the shooting, saying, “I choose you. I’m free. Actions will come tomorrow,” prosecutors said.
Flynn faces up to life in prison without the possibility of parole after the jury found him guilty last week of murder, felonious assault and tampering with evidence.
Flynn appeared briefly on “American Idol” in 2013, telling TV viewers about how his wife had encouraged him to chase his dreams on the singing competition. He sang before judges Mariah Carey, Randy Jackson and Nicki Minaj but did not advance to the main competition in Hollywood.
During closing arguments, prosecutors told jurors that Flynn wanted out of his marriage when he shot his wife. The couple’s two daughters were home with their father when police arrived.
During the trial, Alleigha Botner testified she met Flynn in 2022 while she was a 20-year-old intern at his church and had an affair with him for more than a year. She told jurors that Flynn said he hated his wife and had thoughts of killing her.
Jurors also heard AI-generated love songs that prosecutors said he made for Botner. Flynn didn’t testify on his own behalf, nor did anybody else.
The gun used to kill Ashley Flynn was not found at the scene, and his attorney told jurors that investigators found no evidence that Caleb Flynn fired a gun that day. Prosecutors said his fingerprints and DNA were at the scene and that his devices showed him moving around the house, even though he claimed he was asleep at the time of the shooting.
Netherlands
ICC unseals arrest warrants for 4 Taliban leaders wanted on gender persecution charges
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — The International Criminal Court on Monday unsealed arrest warrants against four senior Taliban leaders, accusing them of the crime against humanity of gender persecution against women, girls and members of the LGBTQI+ community in Afghanistan since the Taliban seized power in 2021.
The court said in a statement that warrants were issued in July and September last year for the Taliban’s supreme leader, Hibatullah Akhundzada, and the head of Afghanistan’s Supreme Court, Abdul Hakim Haqqani. Also wanted are Education Minister Habibullah Agha and Minister of Higher Education Neda Mohammad Nadim.
The existence of the warrants against Akhundzada and Haqqani was revealed last year, but the warrants remained sealed. With the Taliban in control of Afghanistan and the court having no police force to execute warrants, the prospect of any of the suspects being arrested is remote.
Since they took back control of the country, the Taliban have barred women from jobs, most public spaces and education beyond sixth grade. Last year, Akhundzada banned buildings from having windows looking into places where a woman might sit or stand.
Afghan government spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid condemned the court’s decision.
“Afghanistan does not recognize any court under the title of the “International Court,” nor does it attach any significance to its positions,” he said in a written statement. He added, “we are bound by the rulings of Islamic Sharia and its courts, not by intelligence entities or so-called courts.”
Former ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan announced in January last year that he had requested warrants for Akhundzada and Haqqani, saying that his applications “recognize that Afghan women and girls as well as the LGBTQI+ community are facing an unprecedented, unconscionable and ongoing persecution by the Taliban.”
The four suspects are charged with persecution on gender grounds against “girls, women and other persons nonconforming with the Taliban’s policy on gender, gender identity or expression; and on political grounds against persons perceived as ‘allies of girls and women,’” the court said Monday.
Judges who issued the warrants said that the four suspects, “acting on behalf of the Taliban,” implemented a government policy that “resulted in severe violations of fundamental rights and freedoms of the civilian population of Afghanistan, in connection with conducts of murder, imprisonment, torture, rape and enforced disappearance.”
The judges said that the Taliban “specifically targeted girls and women by reason of their gender, depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms” including education, privacy and family life and the freedoms of movement, expression, thought, conscience and religion.
“In addition, other persons were targeted because certain expressions of sexuality and/or gender identity were regarded as inconsistent with the Taliban’s policy on gender,” the judges said.
Rights groups applauded last year when the court issued sealed warrants for the two senior Taliban leaders.
Appeals court weighs judge’s authority to restore Trump administration funding cuts to Harvard
BOSTON (AP) — A federal appeals court heard opposing arguments Monday over whether a judge had the authority to restore billions of dollars in funding that the Trump administration cut from Harvard University.
U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs ruled last year that the cuts amounted to illegal retaliation for Harvard’s rejection of the administration’s demands for changes to Harvard’s governance and policies.
The government had tied the move to Harvard’s delays in dealing with antisemitism, but the judge said the university’s federally backed research had little connection to discrimination against Jews.
The ruling restored more than $2.6 billion in research funding for the wealthy Ivy League school.
Though the money has resumed flowing, a Justice Department attorney told a three-judge panel of the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday that Burroughs lacked the legal power to require the administration to pay it.
The fight over the money was a contractual dispute that rightly belonged in a different court: the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, DOJ attorney Michael Velchik said. That court, which traces its origins to the mid-1800s, handles lawsuits by citizens seeking money from the federal government.
“The problem is that the district court lacked jurisdiction to order specific performance,” Velchik told the First Circuit. “That is the only thing that we’re complaining about here.”
Velchik cited recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings in support of his argument.
Paul Clement, an attorney for Harvard, said the case was not a straightforward contractual dispute, but raised broader issues of retaliation and discrimination. The district court’s decision restoring the funding was the “perfect remedy” for the violations it found, he said.
“These are not claims that really depend on the contract in any particular way,” he said.
First Circuit Judge Joshua Dunlap, a nominee of President Donald Trump, pressed Clement on whether Burroughs had in effect issued an order requiring payment and whether Harvard could make its broader legal claims without a contract.
The other judges on the panel, Sandra Lynch and Gustavo Gelpi, were nominated by Democratic presidents. The judges did not immediately rule.
Harvard’s lawsuit accused the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a series of demands in a letter from a federal antisemitism task force.
The letter demanded sweeping changes related to campus protests, academics and admissions. It was meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment on campus.
The administration also has sought to prevent Harvard from hosting foreign students and threatened to revoke its tax-exempt status in a clash watched widely across higher education.
During Monday’s arguments, Lynch expressed skepticism of the administration’s claim that Harvard had been indifferent to antisemitism.
“There are no findings. There was no investigation. There was simply an announcement, ‘We’re terminating against that backdrop,’” she said.
London
Former Prince Andrew files a legal action to quash warrants that led to searches of his residences
LONDON (AP) — Former Prince Andrew has filed a legal action challenging the warrants that authorized searches at two of his homes earlier this year as British police investigated allegations related to his links to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
A judicial spokesperson confirmed that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor had filed a claim with the High Court in London, and a hearing is scheduled for Thursday.
The Daily Telegraph previously reported that Mountbatten-Windsor had asked the court to determine whether Thames Valley Police acted lawfully in searching the former prince’s homes near Windsor Castle and on King Charles III’s Sandringham estate.
If the court were to find in Mountbatten-Windsor’s favor, it could prevent authorities from using evidence discovered during the searches in any prosecution of the former prince, attorney Mark Stephens said.
Stephens, of the Howard Kennedy firm in London, described the hearing as a preliminary skirmish in the broader legal battle.
The searches were conducted in February when Mountbatten-Windsor was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office, after allegations that the former prince shared sensitive information with Epstein during his time as the U.K.’s trade envoy.
Police questioned Mountbatten-Windsor for 11 hours before releasing him under investigation, meaning he was neither charged nor exonerated.
It was the first time in nearly four centuries that a senior British royal was placed under arrest, underscoring how deference to the monarchy has eroded in recent years.
Thames Valley Police said Monday that its investigation was continuing, even as it confirmed that the department was involved in legal proceedings about the search warrants. A department spokesperson declined further comment while those proceedings are underway.
The allegations against Mountbatten-Windsor came to light when the U.S. Justice Department released millions of pages of documents from its investigation into sex trafficking by Epstein and his connections to a network of wealthy, powerful men around the world.
Mountbatten-Windsor’s relationship with Epstein has been a source of embarrassment to the royal family for more than a decade and forced him to give up royal duties in 2019.
But as further revelations began to leak out of the U.S. investigation last year, the king moved to insulate the monarchy from the fallout by stripping his younger brother of his princely title.
After Mountbatten-Windsor was arrested, Charles departed from the “never complain, never explain” approach of his late mother, Queen Elizabeth II, and took the unusual step of issuing a statement on the investigation.
“Let me state clearly: the law must take its course,’’ he said at the time. “As this process continues, it would not be right for me to comment further on this matter.’’
Ohio
Former ‘American Idol’ singer Caleb Flynn awaits sentencing for wife’s murder
A former music pastor in Ohio who appeared briefly on “American Idol” was set to be sentenced Monday after a jury convicted him of murdering his wife while he was having an affair.
Prosecutors said Caleb Flynn, 40, staged a home invasion in February after shooting his wife, Ashley Flynn, a 37-year-old schoolteacher and volleyball coach. Flynn claimed she was killed by a burglar at their house in Tipp City, a suburb north of Dayton.
He sent a text message to his lover the night before the shooting, saying, “I choose you. I’m free. Actions will come tomorrow,” prosecutors said.
Flynn faces up to life in prison without the possibility of parole after the jury found him guilty last week of murder, felonious assault and tampering with evidence.
Flynn appeared briefly on “American Idol” in 2013, telling TV viewers about how his wife had encouraged him to chase his dreams on the singing competition. He sang before judges Mariah Carey, Randy Jackson and Nicki Minaj but did not advance to the main competition in Hollywood.
During closing arguments, prosecutors told jurors that Flynn wanted out of his marriage when he shot his wife. The couple’s two daughters were home with their father when police arrived.
During the trial, Alleigha Botner testified she met Flynn in 2022 while she was a 20-year-old intern at his church and had an affair with him for more than a year. She told jurors that Flynn said he hated his wife and had thoughts of killing her.
Jurors also heard AI-generated love songs that prosecutors said he made for Botner. Flynn didn’t testify on his own behalf, nor did anybody else.
The gun used to kill Ashley Flynn was not found at the scene, and his attorney told jurors that investigators found no evidence that Caleb Flynn fired a gun that day. Prosecutors said his fingerprints and DNA were at the scene and that his devices showed him moving around the house, even though he claimed he was asleep at the time of the shooting.
Netherlands
ICC unseals arrest warrants for 4 Taliban leaders wanted on gender persecution charges
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — The International Criminal Court on Monday unsealed arrest warrants against four senior Taliban leaders, accusing them of the crime against humanity of gender persecution against women, girls and members of the LGBTQI+ community in Afghanistan since the Taliban seized power in 2021.
The court said in a statement that warrants were issued in July and September last year for the Taliban’s supreme leader, Hibatullah Akhundzada, and the head of Afghanistan’s Supreme Court, Abdul Hakim Haqqani. Also wanted are Education Minister Habibullah Agha and Minister of Higher Education Neda Mohammad Nadim.
The existence of the warrants against Akhundzada and Haqqani was revealed last year, but the warrants remained sealed. With the Taliban in control of Afghanistan and the court having no police force to execute warrants, the prospect of any of the suspects being arrested is remote.
Since they took back control of the country, the Taliban have barred women from jobs, most public spaces and education beyond sixth grade. Last year, Akhundzada banned buildings from having windows looking into places where a woman might sit or stand.
Afghan government spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid condemned the court’s decision.
“Afghanistan does not recognize any court under the title of the “International Court,” nor does it attach any significance to its positions,” he said in a written statement. He added, “we are bound by the rulings of Islamic Sharia and its courts, not by intelligence entities or so-called courts.”
Former ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan announced in January last year that he had requested warrants for Akhundzada and Haqqani, saying that his applications “recognize that Afghan women and girls as well as the LGBTQI+ community are facing an unprecedented, unconscionable and ongoing persecution by the Taliban.”
The four suspects are charged with persecution on gender grounds against “girls, women and other persons nonconforming with the Taliban’s policy on gender, gender identity or expression; and on political grounds against persons perceived as ‘allies of girls and women,’” the court said Monday.
Judges who issued the warrants said that the four suspects, “acting on behalf of the Taliban,” implemented a government policy that “resulted in severe violations of fundamental rights and freedoms of the civilian population of Afghanistan, in connection with conducts of murder, imprisonment, torture, rape and enforced disappearance.”
The judges said that the Taliban “specifically targeted girls and women by reason of their gender, depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms” including education, privacy and family life and the freedoms of movement, expression, thought, conscience and religion.
“In addition, other persons were targeted because certain expressions of sexuality and/or gender identity were regarded as inconsistent with the Taliban’s policy on gender,” the judges said.
Rights groups applauded last year when the court issued sealed warrants for the two senior Taliban leaders.
