From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On the one hand, Trump's executive order defunding public broadcasting
for left-wing bias was obvious viewpoint discrimination,
unconstitutional under the First Amendment. On the other hand, I've long
agreed with specific conservatives, at least with respect to funding
news gathering, that there should be no public subsidy, as public
subsidy is subject to withdrawal and therefore the government can
pressure how news is presented to the public. I had less of a concern
for subsidy of the broadcast engineering and technology itself and
believe that broadcast radio and television, especially in rural areas,
serve a vital function in community service and emergency communication.

This ruling was consolidated NPR v. Trump and PBS v. Trump.

The permanent injunction sought by NPR against the Trump executive order
was granted. However, parts of the motion for summary judgment applied
to Corporation for Public Broadcasting. These were denied as moot as CPB
has been dissolved and there can be no remedy. That the case wasn't
entirely dismissed for mootness is due Trump's order being directed to
all federal agencies and that a small amount of subsidy did not come
through CPB.

It's a pyrrhic victory. Congress rescinded already appropriated monies.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.280953/gov.uscourts.dcd.280953.81.0_4.pdf
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On Apr 1, 2026 at 1:11:03 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

On the one hand, Trump's executive order defunding public broadcasting
for left-wing bias was obvious viewpoint discrimination,
unconstitutional under the First Amendment. On the other hand, I've long agreed with specific conservatives, at least with respect to funding
news gathering, that there should be no public subsidy, as public
subsidy is subject to withdrawal and therefore the government can
pressure how news is presented to the public. I had less of a concern
for subsidy of the broadcast engineering and technology itself and
believe that broadcast radio and television, especially in rural areas,
serve a vital function in community service and emergency communication.

This ruling was consolidated NPR v. Trump and PBS v. Trump.

The permanent injunction sought by NPR against the Trump executive order
was granted. However, parts of the motion for summary judgment applied
to Corporation for Public Broadcasting. These were denied as moot as CPB
has been dissolved and there can be no remedy. That the case wasn't
entirely dismissed for mootness is due Trump's order being directed to
all federal agencies and that a small amount of subsidy did not come
through CPB.

It's a pyrrhic victory. Congress rescinded already appropriated monies.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.280953/gov.uscourts.dcd.280953.81.0_4.pdf

It won't be long before these judges who see themselves as super-presidents
and super-legislators will declare that Congress also doesn't have the legal authority to stop funding things.


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Apr 1, 2026 at 1:11:03 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

On the one hand, Trump's executive order defunding public broadcasting
for left-wing bias was obvious viewpoint discrimination,
unconstitutional under the First Amendment. On the other hand, I've long >>agreed with specific conservatives, at least with respect to funding
news gathering, that there should be no public subsidy, as public
subsidy is subject to withdrawal and therefore the government can
pressure how news is presented to the public. I had less of a concern
for subsidy of the broadcast engineering and technology itself and
believe that broadcast radio and television, especially in rural areas, >>serve a vital function in community service and emergency communication.

This ruling was consolidated NPR v. Trump and PBS v. Trump.

The permanent injunction sought by NPR against the Trump executive order >>was granted. However, parts of the motion for summary judgment applied
to Corporation for Public Broadcasting. These were denied as moot as CPB >>has been dissolved and there can be no remedy. That the case wasn't >>entirely dismissed for mootness is due Trump's order being directed to
all federal agencies and that a small amount of subsidy did not com
through CPB.

It's a pyrrhic victory. Congress rescinded already appropriated monies.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.280953/gov.uscourts.dcd.280953.81.0_4.pdf

It won't be long before these judges who see themselves as super-presidents >and super-legislators will declare that Congress also doesn't have the legal >authority to stop funding things.

Let's not prejudge, ok? Trump's actions were clearly unconstitutional. Congress's actions -- the recision -- clearly are not. I don't believe
for a minute that a federal judge would make the finding you suggest.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On Apr 1, 2026 at 10:20:40 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Apr 1, 2026 at 1:11:03 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

On the one hand, Trump's executive order defunding public broadcasting
for left-wing bias was obvious viewpoint discrimination,
unconstitutional under the First Amendment. On the other hand, I've long >>> agreed with specific conservatives, at least with respect to funding
news gathering, that there should be no public subsidy, as public
subsidy is subject to withdrawal and therefore the government can
pressure how news is presented to the public. I had less of a concern
for subsidy of the broadcast engineering and technology itself and
believe that broadcast radio and television, especially in rural areas,
serve a vital function in community service and emergency communication.

This ruling was consolidated NPR v. Trump and PBS v. Trump.

The permanent injunction sought by NPR against the Trump executive order >>> was granted. However, parts of the motion for summary judgment applied
to Corporation for Public Broadcasting. These were denied as moot as CPB >>> has been dissolved and there can be no remedy. That the case wasn't
entirely dismissed for mootness is due Trump's order being directed to
all federal agencies and that a small amount of subsidy did not com
through CPB.

It's a pyrrhic victory. Congress rescinded already appropriated monies.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.280953/gov.uscourts.dcd.280953.81.0_4.pdf

It won't be long before these judges who see themselves as super-presidents >> and super-legislators will declare that Congress also doesn't have the legal >> authority to stop funding things.

Let's not prejudge, ok? Trump's actions were clearly unconstitutional. Congress's actions -- the recision -- clearly are not. I don't believe
for a minute that a federal judge would make the finding you suggest.

Why not? A federal judge recently ruled that Trump not only couldn't end temporary protected status for Somalis (or Haitians or some group, I can't remember which), but that he had to take affirmative steps to renew it. You see, Trump wasn't canceling it out of the blue. It was a program that was passed into law by Congress before he even took office. Congress put a sunset date on it and the TPS was ending on its own. The judge ruled that Trump not only couldn't deport the people back to their home country but that he had to take affirmative steps to renew the program.

That's simply not something an Article III judge is empowered to do. There's
no legal basis whatsoever for that kind of order. It's like that judge considers himself a super-president and can just order the president to do whatever he thinks is best if he doesn't like how the president is running his administration.

It's hardly a leap from that kind of extra-judicial unconstitutional action to a judge just deciding Congress isn't doing its job properly and not only
ruling that their funding decisions are unconstitutional but affirmatively dictating to them what they must fund and what they can't fund.


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2