Uncategorized
A court ruling has transformed — and limited — the way New York state can regulate yeshivas
NEW YORK (JTA) — What should happen when a yeshiva does not teach its students the legally required amount of secular studies? And who should be held responsible: the school, or the parents who chose it?
Both of those questions were at the heart of a bombshell ruling in a New York state court last week that, if it stands, will transform how the state can regulate private schools. It also poses a challenge to advocates for increased secular education in yeshivas, who have spent years pushing the state to more strictly enforce its standards in schools.
It’s the latest major development in a years-long battle between an education department that seeks to compel secular education standards across private schools and haredi Orthodox yeshivas resisting coercion from the state.
In a trial that pitted several yeshivas and their advocates against the state’s education department, a judge in Albany ruled that the state no longer has the power to effectively force yeshivas to close for not teaching secular studies in a way that is “substantially equivalent” to education in public school. According to the ruling, state law says it’s the responsibility of parents, not schools, to ensure that children receive a “substantially equivalent” secular education.
But the court also ruled that the education requirements themselves still stand. The yeshivas and their supporters had taken the department to court, hoping that the judge would fully strike down the regulations that mandated secular education standards.
Both advocates and critics of the yeshivas are celebrating parts of the ruling and lamenting others. What’s clear is that the state’s mechanism for enforcing secular education standards in private schools will have to change, though what shape it will take remains to be seen.
“It highlights and it notes that the statute itself requires parents to ensure that their children receive a substantially equivalent education, but it doesn’t impose an obligation on the schools to provide that,” said Michael Helfand, a scholar of religious law and religious liberty at Pepperdine University, explaining the ruling. “If that’s the case, there’s no authority under the statute to close the school because the school failed to provide a ‘substantially equivalent’ education.”
The regulations at issue were approved in September, soon after The New York Times published the first in a series of articles investigating Hasidic yeshivas, reporting that a number of them received public funding but fell far short of secular education requirements. The yeshivas, and representatives of haredi Orthodox communities more broadly, have decried the articles as biased and inaccurate.
According to the new regulations, if yeshivas (or other private schools) did not provide a “substantially equivalent” secular education to their students, the state could compel parents to unenroll their children and place them in a school that meets state standards — effectively forcing the school to close.
The judge who wrote last week’s ruling, Christina Ryba, found “that certain portions of the New Regulations impose consequences and penalties upon yeshivas above and beyond that authorized” by law. Ryba wrote that the regulations exceed the state’s authority by forcing parents to withdraw their children.
She added that state law does not mandate that children must receive the requisite secular education “through merely one source of instruction provided at a single location.” She added that if children aren’t receiving the necessary instruction at yeshivas, they can still get it elsewhere, in some form of “supplemental instruction that specifically addresses any identified deficiencies.”
What that ruling means, Helfand said, is that the state will have to turn to other methods to enforce those standards, such as choosing to “tie particular requirements to the way in which schools receive funding.” The state could also investigate parents, not schools — which he described as a much more arduous undertaking.
“It would then have to slowly but surely make its way through each individual family or each individual child [and] ask questions about what they’re supplementing,” he said. “It’s very hard to see exactly how the New York State Education Department could, given this ruling, ensure that every child is receiving a basic education.”
For yeshivas and their advocates, he added, “It’s not the constitutional victory that I think some hoped for but it’s a very practical victory that in the end may stymie the state’s ability to actually impose significant regulation.”
That’s the way advocates of yeshivas — including parties to the petition — appear to be reading this ruling. A statement from Parents for Education and Religious Liberty in Schools, known as PEARLS, one of the petitioners, said the ruling gives “parents the right to send their children to the school of their choice. …In sum, it provides parents and parochial schools with both the autonomy and the protections that the regulations tried to strip away.”
Another advocate of yeshivas that was party to the case, the haredi umbrella organization Agudath Israel of America, saw the ruling as “not the complete victory many were [praying] for,” according to a statement, because it didn’t strike down last year’s regulations entirely. But the group was grateful that Ryba did rule out “the egregious overreach the Regulations sought,” including the “prospect of forcibly shutting down schools.”
Rabbi Avi Shafran, Agudath Israel’s director of public affairs, told JTA that the organization was “obviously relieved” by the ruling but feels the battle isn’t over. At the beginning of the year, Agudath Israel launched a campaign called “Know Us” that aims to counter what it calls a “smear campaign” by The New York Times.
“But with elements out there bent on pressuring yeshivos to accept their own personal educational philosophy, we remain on the alert for any future attempts to limit yeshivos or parental autonomy,” Shafran wrote in an email.
While Agudath Israel may see the ruling as a partial victory, that doesn’t mean advocates for secular education necessarily see it as a total defeat. Young Advocates for Fair Education, known as YAFFED, which submitted an amicus brief to the court in support of the Department of Education, said in a press release that the ruling “is of grave concern to all parents with children in non-public schools.” Beatrice Weber, YAFFED’s executive director, said the ruling will require the group to shift its strategy, which has until now focused on compelling the schools to teach secular studies.
But she is heartened that the core requirement to provide a threshold level of secular studies still stands for parents — and she’s skeptical that haredi communities will take the risk of asking parents to violate that requirement en masse. In the end, she believes more yeshivas will, in fact, become “substantially equivalent” in order to remove that risk.
“This victory they’re celebrating is really putting them in this corner,” Weber said. “We’ll see what they decide to do but none of the claims of [the regulations] being a violation of religious freedom — none of that was accepted.”
Weber acknowledges that the burden for secular education has now shifted to parents, and “there’s not going to be someone knocking on every door” to make sure parents comply. But she noted that many haredi families interact with the state because they receive forms of public assistance, which she said could provide a built-in mechanism to pressure them to comply.
“Any time they touch the government it’s going to come up,” she said. “Many Hasidic families deal with government programs a lot — whether it’s Medicaid, whether it’s food stamps. I can’t see community leaders saying, ‘Whatever, let the families figure it out.’”
A spokesperson for the state education department declined to say whether the state plans to appeal the ruling, or what it means for future oversight of yeshivas. But in a statement, the department said the ruling “validates the Department’s commitment to improving the educational experience of all students.”
The statement added: “We remain committed to ensuring students who attend school in settings consistent with their religious and cultural beliefs and values receive the education to which they are legally entitled.”
Whatever the future holds, Helfand says the ruling reflects a new way to read the law that, for years, has driven tensions between the state and yeshivas.
“I would have expected people reading the statute not to distinguish between whether ‘substantially equivalent’ is a parental obligation or a school obligation,” he said. “The fact that the court was able to slice the obligation in such a precise way — it’s something we haven’t seen before.”
—
The post A court ruling has transformed — and limited — the way New York state can regulate yeshivas appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Condemnation and Applause in Latin America after US Seizes Venezuela’s Maduro
Venezuelans gather to celebrate, after US President Donald Trump said that the US attacked Venezuela and deposed its President Nicolas Maduro, in Santiago, Chile January 3, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Pablo Sanhueza
Latin American leaders were divided between condemnation and jubilation in the wake of a surprise attack on Venezuela early on Saturday that US President Donald Trump said resulted in the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro.
While much of the region has long been wary of a return to US interventions throughout the 20th century that helped install authoritarian governments from Chile to Honduras, Maduro – who presided over his country’s social and economic collapse – was an increasingly unpopular and isolated leader.
Many Latin American countries have also experienced a shift in recent elections to more right-leaning governments, many of whose leaders view the US-backed military regimes of the last century as necessary bulwarks against socialism.
In a sign of the economic pain faced under Maduro, nearly 8 million Venezuelans have fled the country since 2018, with 85 percent of them migrating to neighbors in Latin America and the Caribbean, according to the UN’s International Organization for Migration.
Many countries in the region have experienced surges in organized crime in recent years and the specter of Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang has loomed large over voters’ minds, leading to a rise in politicians vowing to crack down on crime and immigration.
While few leaders will shed serious tears about Maduro’s ousting, governments in the region will react along political lines, said Steven Levitsky, a professor and director of Harvard’s David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies.
“I think you’ll see right-wing governments applaud because that’s what they do. You’ll see left-wing governments criticize because how could they not?” Levitsky said.
REACTIONS SPLIT ALONG IDEOLOGY
The strongest condemnation of the attack came in a string of posts on X from neighboring Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro, a leftist who has frequently clashed with Trump and has also been threatened by the US president.
“The Colombian government rejects the aggression against the sovereignty of Venezuela and Latin America,” Petro said in one message, while calling for an immediate meeting of the United Nations Security Council, of which Colombia is a member.
His Brazilian counterpart, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, echoed Petro’s comments.
“The bombings on Venezuela’s territory and the capture of its president cross an unacceptable line,” Lula said in a statement.
Chile’s outgoing President Gabriel Boric condemned the attack but President-elect Jose Antonio Kast, who rose to power by promising to crack down on migration and crime, said in a post on X that Maduro’s arrest was great news for the region.
“Now begins a greater task. The governments of Latin America must ensure that the entire apparatus of the regime abandons power and is held accountable,” said Kast, who will be sworn in on March 11.
In Mexico, President Claudia Sheinbaum also condemned the US intervention in Venezuela. Asked about comments Trump made on Saturday to Fox News, when he said the US has offered to “take out the cartels” in Mexico and that “we have to do something,” Sheinbaum replied that Mexico has a very good relationship with the US on security matters.
ARGENTINA, ECUADOR BACK ACTION
Argentina’s President Javier Milei, Trump’s closest ally in the region, has long criticized Maduro and posted videos and statements on X in favor of the attack.
In Ecuador, right-wing President Daniel Noboa said Venezuelans opposed to Maduro and his political godfather Hugo Chavez have an ally in Ecuador.
“All the criminal narco-Chavistas will have their moment,” Noboa said on X. “Their structure will finally collapse across the continent.”
Protests both in favor and against the strikes in Venezuela have been scheduled in Buenos Aires and other cities across the region.
The capture of Maduro by US forces “is one of the most momentous decisions in the history of US-Latin America relations,” said Brian Winter, editor-in-chief of Americas Quarterly and vice president of policy at Americas Society/Council of the Americas.
“The operation confirms return of Washington as policeman in its ‘sphere of influence,’ an idea that defined much of 19th and 20th centuries but had faded since (the) end of the Cold War,” Winter said in a post on LinkedIn.
Uncategorized
Democratic US Lawmakers Say They Were Misled on Venezuela, Demand a Plan
US Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) holds a press conference in the US Capitol in Washington, DC, April 23, 2024. Photo: Annabelle Gordon / CNP/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
Democratic members of the US Congress said on Saturday that senior officials of President Donald Trump‘s administration had misled them during recent briefings about plans for Venezuela by insisting they were not planning regime change in Caracas.
The US attacked Venezuela and deposed its long-serving President Nicolas Maduro in an overnight operation, in Washington’s most direct intervention in Latin America since the 1989 invasion of Panama.
Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democrats’ leader in the Senate, said he had been told in three classified briefings that the administration was not pursuing regime change or planning to take military action in Venezuela.
“They assured me that they were not pursuing those things,” Schumer said on a call with reporters. “Clearly they’re not being straight with the American people.”
Schumer said he had not been briefed by Saturday afternoon and called for the administration to fill in not just congressional and intelligence committee leaders, but also all lawmakers by early next week.
“They’ve kept everyone in the total dark,” he said.
Lawmakers said they wanted more guidance on Trump‘s plans for Venezuela, after he told reporters he would put the country under US control, for now.
“No serious plan has been presented for how such an extraordinary undertaking would work or what it will cost the American people. History offers no shortage of warnings about the costs – human, strategic, and moral – of assuming we can govern another nation by force,” said Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The Senate is due to vote next week on whether to block further military action against Venezuela without congressional approval.
In briefings in November and December by officials including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, lawmakers said they were told repeatedly that there were no plans for a land invasion inside Venezuela and that the administration was not focused on regime change.
“Instead, the Administration consistently misled the American people and their elected representatives,” Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement.
The Pentagon, State Department and White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
SOME LAWMAKERS SAY ADMINISTRATION LIED
Several lawmakers said they felt they had been lied to.
“The Administration lied to Congress and launched an illegal war for regime change and oil,” Democratic Representative Don Beyer of Virginia said on X. Beyer’s district includes the Pentagon, just across the river from Washington.
At a news conference on Saturday, Trump said Congress had not been kept fully informed because of concerns that word about his plans would get out. “Congress does have a tendency to leak,” Trump told reporters.
Members of Congress, including some of Trump‘s fellow Republicans as well as Democrats, had been clamoring for more information about his strategy toward the oil-rich South American nation since September, when he began a military build-up in the Caribbean and ordered strikes on boats he said were carrying drugs.
“When we had briefings on Venezuela, we asked, ‘Are you going to invade the country?’ We were told no. ‘Do you plan to put troops on the ground?’ We were told no. ‘Do you intend regime change in Venezuela?’ We were told no,” Democratic Representative Seth Moulton of Massachusetts said on CNN. “So in a sense, we have been briefed, we’ve just been completely lied to.”
Lawmakers said they were not briefed before the operation, although Rubio called some members of Congress after it took place. There were no briefings for lawmakers scheduled by Saturday afternoon. Republican congressional leaders said they hoped to arrange some after lawmakers return to Washington on January 5 following their year-end recess.
Most Republicans praised Trump‘s action and have declined to discuss what has been said in classified briefings.
“President Trump‘s decisive action to disrupt the unacceptable status quo and apprehend Maduro, through the execution of a valid Department of Justice warrant, is an important first step to bring him to justice for the drug crimes for which he has been indicted in the United States,” said Senate Republican Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota.
Members of Congress have long accused presidents from both parties of seeking to sidestep the Constitution’s requirement that Congress, not the president, approve anything other than brief and limited military action needed to defend the United States.
Uncategorized
Israeli Leadership Hails Trump for ‘Brave, Brilliant’ Venezuela Operation
Photo of Maduro in U.S. custody shared by Trump. Photo: i24 illustration.
i24 News – Israel’s prime minister and foreign minister issued high praise to US President Donald Trump following the successful operation on Saturday to capture Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro.
“Israel commends the United States’ operation, led by President Trump, which acted as the leader of the free world,” Gideon Sa’ar, the Jewish state’s top diplomat, wrote on social media. “At this historic moment, Israel stands alongside the freedom-loving Venezuelan people, who have suffered under Maduro’s illegal tyranny.”
“Israel welcomes the removal of the dictator who led a network of drugs and terror and hopes for the return of democracy to the country and for friendly relations between the states,” he further added.
The statement came hours after Maduro and his wife were seized in an overnight operation.
“This was one of the most stunning, effective and powerful displays of American military might and competence in American history,” Trump told reporters at his Mar-a-Lago resort.
Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, hailed Trump’s “bold and historic leadership on behalf of freedom and justice.”
“I salute your decisive resolve and the brilliant action of your brave soldiers,” the premier added.