Tag Archives: court ruling

Brooklyn

Brooklyn Yeshivas Win Court Shield as State Crackdown Hits Pause

In a move stirring both applause and alarm, three Brooklyn yeshivas—accused of sidestepping New York’s basic education standards—have secured a temporary shield from state enforcement. A state judge’s restraining order now halts official actions, despite claims that these schools long withheld essential subjects like English, math, and science. At the heart of the storm lie recent legal shifts, budget amendments, and fierce debate over government oversight in religious education. While defenders praise the pause as fair, critics warn of lasting harm to young minds left without tools for the modern world.

🟦 STORY HIGHLIGHTS

  • Three Brooklyn yeshivas found noncompliant with state academic standards

  • NYSED says schools failed to teach English, math, science, or social studies

  • Judge halts enforcement after new state budget law creates legal ambiguity

  • Education officials express concern over continued public funding to noncompliant institutions

  • Reform advocates worry about long-term impact on students’ basic life skills

In a development that underscores the long-standing tensions between government oversight and religious education, a state judge has paused enforcement measures against three Brooklyn yeshivas that were previously found to be in violation of New York’s basic educational standards.

The ruling, issued by Justice Denise Hartman of an Albany-based trial court, comes in the form of a temporary restraining order. It puts a hold on the New York State Education Department’s (NYSED) final determinations and their enforcement regarding three ultra-Orthodox Jewish institutions: Yeshiva Mosdos Chasidei Square Boro Park, Yeshiva Mosdos Chasidei Square of Williamsburg, and Yeshiva Torah V’Yirah Bais Rochel.

This legal intervention arises amidst an increasingly complex debate over how much regulatory control the state should exercise over private and religious schools — a conversation that has spanned years and generated considerable political and public attention.

The Education Department had previously accused these institutions of failing to provide even the most basic instruction in subjects such as English language arts, math, science, and social studies — requirements laid out under state law to ensure students receive a well-rounded education.

“They have expressed no intention of providing an instructional program that offers basic education in English language arts, math, science, or social studies,”
said JP O’Hare, a spokesperson for the department.

According to the department, these yeshivas had resisted cooperation for nearly a decade, ever since the agency began its initiative to monitor the quality of education offered in non-public institutions. Officials contend that the schools in question have continued to operate in defiance of the law while still receiving public and federal funding — a situation they argue undermines accountability.

“This lawsuit, fueled by the 2025 budget amendments, will reward these bad faith actors,”
O’Hare continued,
“allowing them to collect federal and State money without any oversight.”

The situation escalated earlier this year when six yeshivas — including the three currently under the court’s protective order — were informed by NYSED that they had effectively lost their legal status as schools. Families associated with these institutions were advised to seek alternative educational arrangements to comply with the state’s compulsory education requirements. At the same time, the schools themselves were set to lose access to public funds.

However, in a dramatic turn of events, the resulting backlash from parts of the community — including religious leaders and political figures — led Governor Kathy Hochul and the New York State Legislature to revisit the issue during budget negotiations.

In May, changes were adopted as part of the state’s annual budget, offering religious schools more time and additional pathways to demonstrate compliance with the law.

While these amendments introduced some flexibility for yeshivas and other religious institutions, they also created legal uncertainty. Education Department officials, in internal memos and court filings, argued that because their final determinations were made prior to the budget changes, the affected yeshivas could not retroactively benefit from the new law.

Attorney Steven Barshov, representing the yeshivas, strongly disagreed with that interpretation.

“[Families who] have developed relationships with the yeshivas and staff that go for a number of years… are grateful to the court for issuing a temporary restraining order,”
Barshov said.
“They are hopeful the court will follow through with both a preliminary injunction and an ultimate ruling in their favor — because that gives them certainty.”

The case, while focused on just three schools, reflects broader questions about the future of state oversight in religious education — particularly within the ultra-Orthodox community, where yeshivas often emphasize religious studies over secular instruction.

For education reform advocates, the court’s decision has raised serious alarms. Groups like Young Advocates for Fair Education (Yaffed), which has pushed for improved secular education in yeshivas, fear that the temporary order may undermine hard-won efforts to ensure educational equity.

“NYSED’s actions were a last resort after having exhausted all other efforts over the course of years,”
said Adina Mermelstein Konikoff, executive director of Yaffed.
“They are necessary to guarantee the right of children to a sound, basic education.”

Konikoff added that a continued lack of enforcement could have lasting consequences.

“We cannot allow another generation of children to exit the school system without the skills they need to thrive in today’s world,”
she warned.

As the case moves forward, the education community, lawmakers, and religious institutions alike are watching closely. While the court has not yet issued a final ruling, the restraining order signals that the debate over educational oversight in New York’s religious schools is far from over.

Governor Hochul’s office has yet to comment on the matter. A further court hearing is expected to determine whether the restraining order will evolve into a longer-term injunction — one that could reshape the way the state enforces its education laws on religious schools moving forward.

The court’s temporary restraining order may offer short-term relief to the three Brooklyn yeshivas, but it also deepens a growing legal and moral debate over the limits of state oversight in religious education. As legal interpretations clash and political tensions rise, the future of these institutions—and the students within them—hangs in a delicate balance. While some view the ruling as a necessary defense of religious freedom, others see it as a troubling delay in ensuring every child receives a basic, essential education. The next court decision may chart the true course forward.

Appreciating your time:

We appreciate you taking the time to read our most recent article! We appreciate your opinions and would be delighted to hear them. We value your opinions as we work hard to make improvements and deliver material that you find interesting.

Post a Comment:

In the space provided for comments below, please share your ideas, opinions, and suggestions. We can better understand your interests thanks to your input, which also guarantees that the material we offer will appeal to you. Get in Direct Contact with Us: Please use our “Contact Us” form if you would like to speak with us or if you have any special questions. We are open to questions, collaborations, and, of course, criticism. To fill out our contact form, click this link.

Stay Connected:

Don’t miss out on future updates and articles.

Federal Judge Strikes Down Biden’s Medical Debt Credit Rule

In a striking legal turn, a federal judge has overturned a Biden-era rule that aimed to erase medical debt from credit reports—an initiative once hailed as a relief for millions facing financial strain due to illness. The court ruled that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau overstepped its legal bounds, bringing the sweeping plan to a sudden halt. While former Vice President Kamala Harris championed the cause as part of her 2024 campaign, critics called it an overreach. The decision now sets the stage for renewed debate on credit, care, and control.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

  • Federal Judge Sean Jordan strikes down Biden-era rule erasing medical debt from credit reports

  • Rule was expected to eliminate $50 billion in debt for 15 million Americans

  • Judge rules CFPB exceeded its authority under the Fair Credit Reporting Act

  • Kamala Harris had championed the policy during her 2024 presidential campaign

  • Consumer data groups celebrate the decision as a safeguard for reporting accuracy

  • Trump’s new spending bill also slashes Medicaid and imposes work requirements

  • The ruling is part of broader push to limit federal regulatory power under Trump

In a landmark decision that may significantly impact millions of Americans, a federal judge in Texas has reversed a rule introduced under the Biden administration that allowed medical debt to be removed from credit reports. The ruling has reignited a national debate about the role of government oversight in consumer credit reporting and the financial toll of healthcare costs in the United States.

The decision, delivered on Friday by U.S. District Judge Sean Jordan, comes at a time when the nation’s health care system and credit structure remain under close public and political scrutiny. Jordan, a 2019 appointee of former President Donald Trump, found that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) had exceeded its statutory authority when it finalized the regulation earlier this year.

The rule, initially unveiled in January just before President Biden left office, sought to eliminate the burden of medical debt for millions. The administration had estimated that the move would remove nearly $50 billion in medical debt from the credit reports of roughly 15 million Americans—individuals who, often through no fault of their own, fell into financial distress due to illness or emergency care.

In his legal assessment, Judge Jordan cited the Fair Credit Reporting Act—legislation originally passed in 1970 and amended in 2003—as not granting the CFPB the power to categorically remove types of debt, such as medical expenses, from credit histories.

“The statute does not permit the agency to eliminate entire categories of debt,” Jordan wrote, emphasizing that while the CFPB can suggest or allow creditors to explore other categories of information, it cannot mandate such sweeping exclusions.

The rule had been celebrated by healthcare reform advocates and consumer protection groups as a long-overdue corrective measure for a flawed financial system that penalizes the sick. Then–Vice President Kamala Harris had championed the initiative during her 2024 presidential campaign, positioning medical debt forgiveness as a core component of her economic platform.

“No one should be denied economic opportunity because they got sick or experienced a medical emergency,” Harris had said in January, outlining her vision for expanding healthcare access and financial justice.

She further promised to deepen the Biden administration’s work by broadening debt relief policies and enforcing stricter regulations on what she described as “predatory debt-collection tactics.”

“We also reduced the burden of medical debt by increasing pathways to forgiveness and cracking down on predatory debt-collection tactics,” Harris added, pledging continued reform.

However, the regulation did not go unchallenged. It drew criticism from financial institutions and data industry groups who argued that such changes would disrupt the accuracy and reliability of credit reporting systems. Dan Smith, head of the Consumer Data Industry Association, issued a statement shortly after the court’s ruling, praising the decision.

“This is the right outcome for protecting the integrity of the system,” Smith said, suggesting that the CFPB’s rule threatened to erode the objectivity of credit reports used by lenders, insurers, and employers.

The ruling also aligns with a broader effort by the Trump administration to scale back what it views as federal overreach. Since returning to office, former President Trump has focused his administration’s efforts on identifying and eliminating what his Department of Government Efficiency panel refers to as “waste, fraud and abuse” in federal agencies. The CFPB has been a particular target in that campaign and has already faced budget cuts and staffing reductions.

Judge Jordan’s decision arrives just days after Trump signed a massive tax and spending bill into law that includes extensive cuts to Medicaid. The legislation, passed amid contentious debate, introduces new work requirements that may result in millions of Americans losing access to healthcare coverage.

As the nation braces for the broader consequences of these changes, consumer advocates warn that the ruling may represent a setback for low-income families already burdened by out-of-pocket medical costs. Whether Congress or the courts revisit the issue in the near future remains uncertain, but for now, medical debt will continue to appear on Americans’ credit reports—regardless of the circumstances under which it was incurred.

The court’s rejection of the Biden-era medical debt credit reporting rule marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing battle between financial regulation and individual economic relief. While the decision upholds the limits of agency authority under federal law, it simultaneously revives concerns over the burden of medical debt on millions of Americans. As debates over healthcare, credit fairness, and government reach intensify, the fate of debt relief remains uncertain—caught between the scales of legal interpretation and the struggles of everyday survival.

Appreciating your time:

We appreciate you taking the time to read our most recent article! We appreciate your opinions and would be delighted to hear them. We value your opinions as we work hard to make improvements and deliver material that you find interesting.

Post a Comment:

In the space provided for comments below, please share your ideas, opinions, and suggestions. We can better understand your interests thanks to your input, which also guarantees that the material we offer will appeal to you. Get in Direct Contact with Us: Please use our “Contact Us” form if you would like to speak with us or if you have any special questions. We are open to questions, collaborations, and, of course, criticism. To fill out our contact form, click this link.

Stay Connected:

Don’t miss out on future updates and articles.