On Friday, the United States Supreme Court gave the green light to the Trump administration to move forward with the cancellation of millions of dollars in federal education grants. The grants in question were said to be funding programs based around diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.
The high court was divided in its decision, with a 5-4 split granting the request from the Justice Department to halt a federal district court order. This order had previously required the Department of Education to reinstate the grants which had been awarded to various universities and nonprofit organizations in eight states. The Supreme Court stated in an unsigned opinion that this stay will remain in effect while the legal proceedings unfold.
The court’s statement following the decision noted the financial stability of the respondents, stating: “Respondents have represented in this litigation that they have the financial wherewithal to keep their programs running. So, if respondents ultimately prevail, they can recover any wrongfully withheld funds through suit in an appropriate forum.” The court further noted that if the respondents chose not to maintain their programs, any resulting irreparable harm would be of their own doing.
In contrast to the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the three liberal justices in dissent. Justice Elena Kagan openly criticized the court’s decision, labeling it a “mistake.” She argued that the Trump administration failed to adequately defend the legality of canceling the education grants involved in the case. In a shared dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed confusion at why the majority of the court treated the Justice Department’s request for intervention as an emergency.
Justice Jackson’s written dissent strongly criticized the court’s decision, stating: “The harms that will result from permitting the department to reinstate these terminations are directly contrary to Congress’s goals in enacting the TQP and SEED programs and in entrusting the department with their implementation.” She further expressed her disbelief at equating the potential devastation from sudden funding withdrawals with the risk of some grantees seeking to draw on previously promised funds that the department now wants to withdraw. She described the court’s decision to grant the Trump administration relief as “unprincipled and unfortunate,” and “entirely unwarranted.”
The legal dispute over the Trump administration’s decision to cut the grants is only the latest in a series of challenges to President Trump’s second-term policies that have reached the Supreme Court. These policies are largely centered around cutting off federal assistance funding and foreign aid. Despite the administration’s efforts, the courts have so far consistently rejected these policies.
Three other requests for relief from the Justice Department are still pending before the Supreme Court, and more emergency appeals are expected to reach the justices as the president faces numerous lawsuits targeting his second-term agenda.
The question at the heart of this dispute over the Education Department’s funds is the potential loss of up to $65 million in grants. These grants were awarded through the Teacher Quality Partnership program and the Supporting Effective Educator Development program, both of which support teacher recruitment and training initiatives.
In early February, the acting secretary of education initiated an internal review of the department’s grant awards. The purpose of this review was to ensure that the funds were not being used to support programs with DEI practices, which the Trump administration has labeled as discriminatory. Following the review, the Education Department decided to terminate 104 grants that did not align with its policy objectives, according to the Justice Department. Only five grants were left untouched.
Following the cancellation of the grants, eight states took legal action against the Trump administration. These states — California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin — filed a lawsuit requesting a federal district court to issue temporary relief while the case was being litigated. The states argued that the grant terminations violated a federal law that governs the agency rulemaking process.
U.S. District Judge Myong Joun agreed with the states, granting a temporary restraining order that would remain in effect until April 7. This order required the government to reinstate the grants to recipients in the eight states and temporarily blocked the government from reinstating the terminations or cancelling any other awards for organizations in these states.
In response to this, the Trump administration asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit to pause the order while proceedings continued. The court declined to do this, leading the Justice Department to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court.
In her filings with the justices, acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris argued that the district court’s order is one of several that is raising questions about whether a district court judge can force the government to pay out millions in taxpayer dollars. She wrote, “Unless and until this court addresses that question, federal district courts will continue exceeding their jurisdiction by ordering the executive branch to restore lawfully terminated grants across the government, keep paying for programs that the executive branch views as inconsistent with the interests of the United States, and send out the door taxpayer money that may never be clawed back.”
Harris urged the Supreme Court to swiftly put an end to what she described as federal district courts’ unconstitutional reign as self-appointed managers of executive branch funding and grant-disbursement decisions. She argued that the district court’s order was an overreach of its jurisdiction, and that it was forcing the executive branch to go against its own interests.
In a separate case, the high court rejected an earlier bid from the Trump administration to pause an order that required it to pay out an estimated $2 billion in foreign-aid funding to groups that received money from the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development.
In a filing with the Supreme Court, attorneys for the states argued that the Justice Department’s issue is with other cases elsewhere, where courts are dealing with numerous legal disputes arising out of Mr. Trump’s executive actions. “Those concerns are properly litigated in the context of those other cases,” the states said in a filing. They argued that these concerns do not provide a basis for the Supreme Court to grant emergency relief in this case, where the district court appropriately granted a narrow and time-limited restraining order to preserve the status quo while it adjudicates the preliminary-injunction motion that was argued earlier today.
The attorneys for the states defended the grant recipients, stating that they are providing a pipeline of qualified teachers for local schools within their states. They warned that if the awards could be cancelled, the programs funded by these grants would have to be scaled back or shut down entirely. They argued that the harm the defendants might face from the temporary restraining order in the few days remaining before that order expires is far outweighed by the immediate harm the states will suffer if the order were stayed or vacated. They argued that the immediate need to continue these programs outweighed the potential harm to the defendants.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision has paved the way for the Trump administration to cancel millions of dollars in federal education grants that were originally intended to fund diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. This decision has created a divide within the court and sparked a heated debate about the role of the judiciary in executive funding decisions. The outcome of this case will likely have significant implications for the future of federal funding and the separation of powers within the U.S. government.
