The Supreme Court, which favored the Trump administration by permitting officials to deny a $65 million teacher development grant based on concerns regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, supported the Trump administration.
Emergency Judgment 5-4 has lifted the lower order that mandated the education sector to renew subsidies for eight Democrat-led states engaged in litigation.
Five of the six conservative justices on the court sided with the administration’s position. Chief Justice John Roberts, along with the three Liberal justices, opposed the ruling.
This ruling is not the final conclusion on the matter, and the issue may eventually be brought back to the Supreme Court. The directive from Friday allows the administration to continue halting grants until the litigation is concluded.
“The respondents have outlined their financial resources to keep the program functioning during this case. Thus, if they ultimately prevail, they may reclaim funds that were unlawfully withheld through the appropriate legal channels,”
In February, the administration initiated the cancellation of disbursements associated with two federal education grants intended for enhancing educator development and addressing teacher shortages. It supports programs that improve teacher quality and develop effective educators.
The administration has framed the funding freeze as part of a larger effort to mitigate DEI, occurring concurrently with Trump and Education Secretary Linda McMahon’s apparent attempts to undermine the department.
U.S. District Judge Myung Jun, appointed by President Obama, issued a temporary restraining order on March 10th that mandated the administration to reinstate grant programs in eight states promptly.
The emergency appeal from the Trump administration to the Supreme Court was filed following a panel of three judges from the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to rescind Judge Jun’s ruling.
The judge did not provide a rationale for the dissent, but the three liberal justices criticized the majority for intervening so early in the proceedings.
“When this court determines, as seen here, a rare instance of minimal briefing without discussion or consideration, the chance of error increases,” wrote Judge Elena Kagan in a brief dissent.
“Occasionally, courts must act in such a manner despite the risks, and there will undoubtedly be legitimate differences in opinions regarding when this is necessary,” she added. “However, I believe there was no reason for immediate intervention in this instance. Rather than establishing new precedents on emergency dockets, the issue should have progressed normally.”
In a more extensive dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, accompanied by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, remarked that it was “beyond comprehension” that the majority interpreted the situation as urgent.
“The court’s eagerness to intervene in the initial phases of this ongoing litigation, even when acknowledging the plaintiff’s significant harm to the state, does not grant exclusive justification, particularly as the government has not substantiated that harmful conduct is lawful.
The administration has submitted several emergency requests urging the judiciary to limit lower courts that have hindered Trump’s policies.
“Even in scenarios where the government does not retrieve these funds, if the government does not recover this financial allocation, this situation imposes systemic and irreversible constitutional damage upon the enforcement division due to judicial interferences concerning how agencies administer or revoke the subsidies. Even if the government acknowledges potential minor harm from not reclaiming these funds, the overall systemic and irreparable constitutional damage to the enforcement sector persists,” stated the Justice Department in a court brief.
The states involved in the lawsuit argue that existing regulations do not permit the administration to suspend grant programs, but have noted that lower court decisions are temporary and typically not appealed.
“The district court appropriately granted a specific, time-limited restraining order while preparing for a quick ruling on the request for a preliminary injunction. There is insufficient basis for this court to uphold or vacate the order,” they argued.
The coalition led by California also includes Massachusetts, New Jersey, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin.
Their case now returns to the court where Judge Jun is considering whether to issue a longer injunction after holding a hearing last Friday. However, the majority’s five justices have raised concerns about the lawsuit’s future, arguing that Judge Jun lacks jurisdiction.
This is merely one of two lawsuits challenging the halted teacher grant programs. Similar actions initiated by a private education organization remain pending in the Interim Court of Appeals.
The new ruling represents the Supreme Court’s second emergency decision, highlighting the Trump administration’s aggressive attempts to cut federal funding.
Earlier in March, the court denied the administration’s plea to freeze $2 billion in foreign aid in a tight 5-4 ruling.
Updated 5:04pm EDT
