STM Blog
Harvard, like all Americans, can’t be punished by the government for speaking freely – and a federal court decision upholds decades of precedents saying so
The Trump administration’s funding cuts to Harvard were deemed unconstitutional by a federal judge, emphasizing that government cannot retaliate against institutions for their views. This ruling underscores the importance of protecting free speech and dissent in American democracy.
Last Updated on October 5, 2025 by Daily News Staff
Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin, Boise State University
When the federal government threatened to cancel billions in research funds from Harvard University – as it has also done to other research universities – the message was clear: Institutions that speak or think in ways elected officials dislike can expect to pay a price.
But in a recent ruling that underscored a principle at the heart of American democracy, a federal judge struck down the Trump administration’s move. The “government-initiated onslaught against Harvard was much more about promoting a governmental orthodoxy in violation of the First Amendment than about anything else,” U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs wrote.
The Harvard controversy began when the Trump administration announced plans to cut off billions in federal research funds because it objected to the university’s public positions, campus culture and some of its academic scholarship. No one contended that Harvard had mismanaged money or failed to meet grant requirements.
Instead, the White House said the school had done too little to eliminate so-called woke diversity, equity and inclusion – DEI – policies and alleged that antisemitism proliferated on campus, as evidenced by student demonstrations against Israel’s conduct in the Gaza war.
Along with the American Association of University Professors, Harvard filed suit in response to the funding cuts, arguing that the administration’s action was punitive and unconstitutional – a textbook case of retaliation. By canceling funding, the government was deploying financial pressure to silence disfavored speech. https://www.youtube.com/embed/rn77N4VGkcU?wmode=transparent&start=0 White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on April 15, 2025, spoke about President Donald Trump’s moves against Harvard.
Protection for dissent and disagreement
In striking down the funding cut, Burroughs ruled that the administration’s move violated the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly by limiting government intrusion. While government officials may disagree with Harvard’s speech – whether that means faculty scholarship, public statements or the culture of campus debate – they cannot retaliate by pulling federal support, the judge wrote.
As chair of a public policy institute devoted to strengthening deliberative democracy, I have written two books about the media and the presidency, and another about media ethics. My research traces how news institutions shape civic life and why healthy democracies rely on free expression.
The principle at work in the Harvard case is simple: Free speech protections don’t just apply to individuals in the town square or in places where public decisions are being made.
First Amendment rights extend to private institutions, even when their views or policies contravene official government opinions, and even when they receive funding from the government. Government reprisal does more than chill speech – it sets up a system where only state-approved viewpoints can flourish.
Supreme Court has seen this before
The ruling in Harvard’s favor follows a long legal tradition of Supreme Court rulings that bar the government from demanding ideological acquiescence in exchange for support.
In the case Speiser v. Randall that was decided in 1958, the court struck down a California law requiring veterans to sign loyalty oaths to receive tax exemptions. The decision created the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions, a principle that forbids government from making the receipt of a government benefit or entitlement conditional in a way that interferes with the exercise of a constitutional right.
In Perry v. Sindermann, a 1972 decision, a professor was denied reappointment at a state college after criticizing administrators. Even without tenure, the court held, the government could not retaliate against him for protected speech.
And in Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez, the court in 2001 invalidated restrictions that barred federally funded legal aid lawyers from challenging welfare laws. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that such limits “distort the legal system” by preventing some members of the bar from making arguments on behalf of their clients, while the government would face no similar restriction in promoting their own views.
Supreme Court’s contemporary signals
More recent cases show the court wrestling with the same question in new contexts.
The court’s 2013 decision in Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International struck down a requirement that nonprofits adopt a government-approved position opposing prostitution in order to receive global health funding.
The government, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, could not make program funds dependent on grant-seeking groups adopting particular political or moral beliefs. In this case, that meant the Alliance for Open Society did not have to condemn sex work in order to qualify for public health funding.
Likewise, in Janus v. AFSCME from 2018, the court struck down an Illinois law that required public employees who chose not to join a union to still pay fees to support it. The state had argued that these “fair-share fees” were necessary because unions bargain on behalf of all workers. But the court said that forcing nonmembers to pay was a form of compelled speech – subsidizing union political organizing – that abridged the First Amendment.
While the context is very different from Harvard’s funding dispute, both cases highlight the same principle: The government cannot use money – whether through subsidies, grants or mandatory fees – as a way to compel or suppress expression. These rulings show that the First Amendment protections apply to government funding and policy questions that quietly shape who gets heard and who does not.
Long history of retaliation
While American myth celebrates the idea that the United States welcomes dissent, the government has a history of punishing protesters.
The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 criminalized criticism of the federal government. During World War I, the Espionage and Sedition Acts were used to imprison activists and silence newspapers. In the 1950s, Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s crusade against alleged communists extended to universities, with faculty losing jobs and having their careers destroyed.
In each of those episodes, dissent was framed as dangerous to national security or social stability. And in each case, the tools of government – whether criminal law, congressional investigations or funding threats – were used to discipline voices that strayed from the party line. The impulse to punish institutions for perceived ideological deviance is part of a recurring American story.
What’s distinctive today is how the tactic has been folded into the culture wars.
Where earlier generations of politicians used criminal prosecution or loyalty oaths, the contemporary fight often plays out in budget spreadsheets. Defund public radio. Cut university budgets. Zero out grants to the arts.
These are not just fiscal decisions; they are symbolic moves aimed at disciplining institutions seen by conservatives as too liberal or too critical.
Why this matters beyond the courts
The latest ruling may protect Harvard in this instance, but the larger conflict is not going away.
The legal decision confirms that retaliation violates the First Amendment, but political leaders may continue to test the boundaries. And among the public, the idea that universities should play along with official doctrine in exchange for continued government funding may eventually gain traction. That possibility feels especially real given Trump’s promises, echoed by Vice President JD Vance and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, to wield federal power against universities and civic groups they portray – often inaccurately – as leftist, radical or violent.
A society where public funding flows only to institutions aligned with those in power is not a free society. It’s one where government can shape the landscape of knowledge and debate to its own ends.
The Harvard decision offers a reminder: The First Amendment is not just about the right to speak without fear of jail. It’s also about ensuring that the government cannot punish speech indirectly by threatening livelihoods and institutions. That’s why this case matters to the future of free expression in American democracy.
Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin, Frank and Bethine Church Endowed Chair of Public Affairs, Boise State University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Link: https://stmdailynews.com/%f0%9f%93%9c-who-created-blogging-a-look-back-at-the-birth-of-the-blog/
The Knowledge
When Did Water Vending Machines Become a Thing?
When did water vending machines appear in America? Explore their history from a 1908 penny water vendor to the refill machines of the 1970s and 1980s.
You’ve probably seen them hundreds of times.
They sit outside supermarkets, convenience stores and shopping centers—or sometimes stand alone in small roadside kiosks. You bring an empty bottle, usually one, three or five gallons, put in some money, push a button and watch purified water pour into your container.
For many people in California, Arizona and other parts of the American West, water vending machines seem like they’ve simply always been there.
But when did we actually start buying water this way?
The answer takes us back more than a century, although the machines we recognize today didn’t really arrive until the 1970s.
The Water Vending Machine’s Surprising Ancestor
The story begins in Boston in 1908 with a man named Lawrence Luellen.
Luellen was working on something that sounds surprisingly modern: a machine that would allow someone to pay a penny and receive a clean drink of water in an individual disposable cup.
At the time, public drinking water was often consumed from a communal cup or metal dipper—a practice that increasingly worried public-health officials because of the potential spread of disease.
Luellen developed a paper drinking cup along with what became known as the Luellen Cup & Water Vendor. The porcelain machine contained water, ice, disposable cups and a place for discarded cups.
For one penny, a customer could get a drink of cold water in a fresh cup.
Historical records at Lafayette College’s Hugh Moore Dixie Cup Company Collection show that Luellen completed work on the vending apparatus in early 1908. His company, the American Water Supply Company of New England, was incorporated on April 4 of that year.
There was just one problem.
The complete water machine was expensive to manufacture.
The company eventually concentrated on selling the disposable cups and cup dispensers instead. Those cups ultimately evolved into one of America’s most recognizable household products—the Dixie Cup.
So although Luellen’s machine wasn’t the five-gallon refill station we know today, the basic idea was already there:
Put money into a machine and receive drinking water.
The Modern Water Vending Machine Arrives
The next major chapter didn’t occur until roughly 65 years later.
According to histories of the water-vending industry, the first practical machines designed to sell purified water in bulk appeared during the mid-1970s.
These were fundamentally different from Luellen’s machine.
Instead of giving customers a cup of water, the new machines treated water—typically municipal tap water—and allowed customers to fill their own reusable containers.
And we have unusually strong evidence that these machines were operating by 1976.
On July 26, 1976, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a memorandum specifically addressing the regulatory status of water vending machines.
The EPA described machines that filtered and disinfected water with ultraviolet light and then dispensed the treated water into a customer’s own container using a coin-operated mechanism.
In other words, by the summer of 1976, the basic water-refill machine many of us recognize today was already operating in the United States.
Why the 1970s?
The timing wasn’t accidental.
Americans had become increasingly concerned about pollution and drinking-water quality during the 1960s and 1970s.
Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974, establishing a federal framework for protecting public drinking-water supplies. National drinking-water regulations followed during the decade.
Meanwhile, technologies such as filtration, activated carbon treatment, ultraviolet disinfection and eventually reverse osmosis made it practical to build relatively compact systems capable of treating municipal water at the point where it was sold.
The result was a new business opportunity:
Instead of transporting thousands of bottles of water to a store, a vending company could connect a machine to the local water supply, purify that water on site and sell it by the gallon.
Customers supplied the bottle.
California Helps Turn It Into a Business
California became one of the industry’s most important early markets.
One company that would eventually become a major player was founded by Robert G. Miller.
In 1983, Miller established Bottle Water Vending Inc., the predecessor of Glacier Water Services.
The company manufactured water vending machines and placed many of them outside supermarkets. Customers brought their own containers, while participating stores often sold reusable plastic jugs nearby.
The machines treated municipal water using combinations of filtration, reverse osmosis, carbon treatment and ultraviolet sterilization.
The idea caught on quickly.
In 1984, the company expanded from California into Arizona.
Nevada followed in 1986.
By 1987, the company reportedly had nearly 900 water vending machines operating.
Texas and Florida followed in 1988.
The familiar supermarket water-refill station was becoming a significant business.
Then Came the Drive-Up Water Kiosk
Another variation appeared at almost exactly the same time.
In 1984, Lani and Don Dolifka developed what became Watermill Express in Colorado.
Their idea was an automated stand-alone purification kiosk capable of taking municipal water, processing it through multiple purification stages and selling the finished drinking water directly to customers.
Instead of walking into a supermarket, customers could pull up to the kiosk with their bottles.
Later Watermill Express systems were designed to accommodate reusable containers ranging from one to five gallons, using treatment processes including sediment filtration, activated carbon, reverse osmosis, ultraviolet disinfection and ozone treatment.
That basic concept remains familiar today.
Why Five-Gallon Bottles?
The five-gallon container was already well established through traditional bottled-water delivery services.
But refill vending changed the economics.
Instead of purchasing another filled bottle—or waiting for a delivery—a customer could keep the same container and refill it repeatedly.
That eliminated much of the packaging and transportation involved with conventional bottled water.
It also made purified drinking water relatively inexpensive.
Bring the jug.
Buy the water.
Take the same jug home.
Bring it back when it’s empty.
More than four decades later, that’s still essentially how the system works.
So Who Invented the Modern Water Vending Machine?
That’s where the story gets complicated.
There doesn’t appear to be a single universally recognized inventor of the modern bulk purified-water vending machine.
Lawrence Luellen developed an important early coin-operated water vending concept in 1908, but his machine dispensed an individual drink and disposable cup—not gallons of purified water into a customer’s reusable bottle.
The modern bulk-water machine emerged much later, apparently during the mid-1970s, as water-treatment technology and consumer concern about drinking-water quality converged.
By 1976, the EPA was already dealing with the regulatory implications of machines that treated municipal water and sold it through coin-operated dispensers into customers’ own containers.
Entrepreneurs and companies then refined and expanded the idea during the 1980s.
From a Penny Cup to Five Gallons at a Time
The evolution is remarkable.
1908: Put in a penny and receive a cup of cold water.
Mid-1970s: Machines begin treating municipal water and selling purified water in bulk.
1976: The EPA documents coin-operated machines dispensing treated water into customers’ containers.
1983: Bottle Water Vending, the predecessor of Glacier Water Services, begins operations in California.
1984: Glacier’s predecessor expands into Arizona, while Watermill Express develops its automated purification kiosk in Colorado.
Late 1980s and beyond: Water refill machines become increasingly familiar outside supermarkets and at stand-alone locations throughout the United States.
Today, paying a few coins—or tapping a card—and filling a five-gallon jug might seem thoroughly ordinary.
But the machine sitting outside your neighborhood supermarket represents more than a century of evolution in how Americans buy something that once seemed almost unimaginable to sell from a vending machine:
a drink of water.
Sources and Further Reading
U.S. EPA — Status of Water Vending Machines Under Public Law 93-523
Lafayette College — Hugh Moore Dixie Cup Company Collection
U.S. EPA — Safe Water Research Milestones
Glacier Water Services Company History
World Vision — History of Watermill Express
📰 Enjoying STM Daily News? Join the conversation!
💬 Leave a comment, share your thoughts, and subscribe to our newsletter for the latest stories, updates, and “News You Can Use This Moment!” delivered to your inbox.
Stay connected with STM Daily News!
High Speed Rail
Brightline West Construction Advances, But Opening Timeline Shifts Beyond the 2028 Olympics
Construction continues to expand along Interstate 15 as Brightline West moves closer to connecting Southern California and Las Vegas with 200 mph electric trains, though the opening timeline has shifted to late 2029.
The vision of traveling between Southern California and Las Vegas in about two hours by high-speed rail is steadily becoming more tangible as Brightline West expands construction activity along the Interstate 15 corridor.
Since construction officially began in 2025, work has continued to ramp up in both California and Nevada. Motorists traveling I-15 may have noticed increased construction activity, survey crews, utility work, and periodic lane closures as the project moves from planning into full-scale development.
Construction Is Becoming More Visible
Brightline West’s 218-mile all-electric high-speed rail line will connect Rancho Cucamonga, California, with Las Vegas, Nevada, using the median of Interstate 15 for much of the route.
Current work includes:
- Utility relocation
- Geotechnical investigations
- Site preparation
- Early civil construction
- Continued work around future station locations
As construction progresses, travelers should expect additional traffic impacts along portions of I-15 while crews prepare for bridges, guideways, track installation, and station construction.
A New Timeline
One of the biggest developments since construction began is a revised completion schedule.
While Brightline West was once expected to open before the 2028 Los Angeles Olympic Games, current projections now place passenger service in late 2029.
Large infrastructure projects frequently experience schedule adjustments due to inflation, labor availability, permitting, and supply chain challenges. Although the delay means Olympic visitors are unlikely to ride the line, construction continues to move forward.
Four Passenger Stations Planned
The line will include stations at:
- Las Vegas
- Apple Valley
- Hesperia
- Rancho Cucamonga
Passengers traveling from Los Angeles will transfer to Brightline West using Metrolink at Rancho Cucamonga, creating an important connection between Southern California’s commuter rail network and the new high-speed line.
Fast, Electric Travel
When complete, Brightline West trains are expected to operate at speeds approaching 200 mph, reducing travel time between Rancho Cucamonga and Las Vegas to approximately 2 hours and 10 minutes.
The fully electric trains are being manufactured by Siemens and are designed to offer a comfortable alternative to one of America’s busiest highway corridors.
Looking Ahead
The next major milestones will likely include visible bridge construction, elevated guideways, station buildings, track installation, electrical systems, and eventually testing of the first trainsets.
While passengers will have to wait a bit longer than originally hoped, Brightline West remains one of the most ambitious passenger rail projects currently under construction in the United States.
For Southern California, it represents more than a faster trip to Las Vegas—it could signal the beginning of a new era for high-speed passenger rail in the American West.
Have you driven the I-15 corridor recently? Have you seen any Brightline West construction? Share your observations in the comments below, and subscribe to the STM Daily News newsletter for more transportation and infrastructure updates.
Source and Related Links
- Brightline West – Construction:Construction Plan & Current Project Details — breakdown of the Nevada and California construction segments, stations, track/electrification and maintenance facility.
- Brightline West – Construction Advisories:Current Construction Advisories — useful for ongoing field investigations, lane impacts and work-zone updates.
- Brightline West – Project Overview:Official Project Overview — confirms the 218-mile Las Vegas–Rancho Cucamonga route and overall project scope.
- Nevada Department of Transportation:Brightline West High-Speed Rail Project — government source covering the route, stations, $3 billion federal award and construction background.
- Siemens Mobility:American Pioneer 220 Manufacturing Facility — details on the U.S.-built high-speed trainsets and Siemens’ Horseheads, New York manufacturing facility.
- Brightline West – Official Groundbreaking:April 2024 Groundbreaking Announcement — useful background on the project’s infrastructure, bridges, rail, electrification and Buy America commitments.
The Knowledge
Exploring the Best Neighborhoods in Downtown Los Angeles
From the Arts District and Little Tokyo to the Historic Core and Bunker Hill, discover the best neighborhoods in Downtown Los Angeles and what makes each one worth exploring.
Last Updated on August 5, 2026 by Daily News Staff
The Best Neighborhoods in Downtown Los Angeles
Downtown Los Angeles has undergone one of the most remarkable transformations of any urban center in the United States. Once known primarily as the city’s business district, DTLA has evolved into a vibrant collection of neighborhoods, each offering its own unique character, history, dining, entertainment, and cultural experiences.
Whether you’re a first-time visitor, a longtime Angeleno, or planning your next weekend adventure, these are some of Downtown LA’s must-visit neighborhoods.
Arts District: Where Creativity Comes to Life
The Arts District has become one of the city’s most exciting destinations. Former warehouses have been transformed into lofts, art galleries, coffee shops, breweries, and award-winning restaurants.
Visitors can spend hours exploring colorful murals, browsing independent boutiques, and discovering public art around nearly every corner. It’s a neighborhood that celebrates creativity while preserving its industrial roots.
Perfect for: Art lovers, photographers, foodies, and nightlife.
Historic Core: A Walk Through Old Los Angeles
The Historic Core showcases Downtown LA’s architectural heritage. Along Broadway and surrounding streets, beautifully restored theaters, historic hotels, and early 20th-century buildings tell the story of a booming city during Hollywood’s Golden Age.
Highlights include the iconic Bradbury Building, Grand Central Market, and numerous rooftop restaurants overlooking the skyline.
Perfect for: History buffs and architecture enthusiasts.
South Park: Entertainment Central
South Park is home to some of Los Angeles’ biggest attractions, including LA Live and Crypto.com Arena. The neighborhood has added thousands of apartments, new restaurants, hotels, and entertainment venues over the past two decades.
Whether you’re attending a Lakers game, a concert, or simply enjoying dinner before an event, South Park offers something for everyone.
Perfect for: Sports fans, concerts, and nightlife.
Little Tokyo: A Cultural Treasure
One of only a handful of historic Japantowns remaining in the United States, Little Tokyo offers authentic Japanese cuisine, specialty shops, cultural events, museums, and peaceful gardens.
From fresh sushi and ramen to Japanese bakeries and tea houses, visitors can experience generations of cultural heritage in just a few city blocks.
Perfect for: Families, food lovers, and cultural exploration.
Bunker Hill: Downtown’s Cultural Heart
Bunker Hill combines modern architecture with world-class arts and culture. Home to Walt Disney Concert Hall, The Broad, the Museum of Contemporary Art, and Grand Park, this neighborhood is ideal for visitors looking to experience Downtown’s artistic side.
Its dramatic skyline and public spaces also make it one of the most photographed areas in Los Angeles.
Perfect for: Museum lovers and architecture fans.
Financial District: The Skyline of Los Angeles
Glass skyscrapers, luxury hotels, and bustling sidewalks define the Financial District. While it remains the city’s business center during the workweek, the neighborhood also offers excellent dining, rooftop lounges, and convenient access to other parts of Downtown.
Chinatown: Tradition Meets Modern LA
Los Angeles’ Chinatown blends rich history with a growing collection of contemporary restaurants, galleries, and community events. Visitors can enjoy traditional cuisine alongside modern culinary experiences while exploring one of the city’s oldest cultural neighborhoods.
Fashion District: A Shopper’s Paradise
Covering more than 100 city blocks, the Fashion District is one of the largest garment centers in the country. Whether you’re searching for fabrics, clothing, accessories, or bargains at Santee Alley, this neighborhood attracts shoppers from across Southern California.
A Downtown That Continues to Evolve
Downtown Los Angeles isn’t just one destination—it’s a collection of neighborhoods that reflect the city’s diversity, creativity, and resilience. From historic landmarks and world-class museums to vibrant street art and internationally inspired cuisine, DTLA offers something new around nearly every corner.
Whether you’re planning a day trip or an extended visit, exploring these neighborhoods is one of the best ways to experience the energy and history of Los Angeles.
Related External Links
- Discover Los Angeles – Explore Downtown LA
- Grand Central Market
- The Broad Museum
- Walt Disney Concert Hall
- Japanese American National Museum (Little Tokyo)
- Arts District Los Angeles
- LA Live
- LA Metro – Getting Around Downtown Los Angeles
- Olvera Street and El Pueblo Historic Monument
- Visit California – Los Angeles Travel Guide
📰 Enjoying STM Daily News? Join the conversation!
💬 Leave a comment, share your thoughts, and subscribe to our newsletter for the latest stories, updates, and “News You Can Use This Moment!” delivered to your inbox.
Stay connected with STM Daily News!
