On Friday, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to temporarily halt $65 million in teacher-training grants, which the administration argues would foster diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, marking an initial win for the administration before the justices.
The court’s order was unsigned, a customary practice for emergency applications.
The ruling was 5 to 4, with the conservative justices — Amy Coney Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., and Brett M. Kavanaugh — comprising the majority. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. dissented alongside the three liberal justices.
This order responded to a series of emergency requests from the Trump administration seeking the court’s intervention to overturn lower court rulings that had temporarily obstructed elements of President Trump’s agenda.
The grants in question were intended to place educators in underserved and rural areas and aimed to recruit a workforce that reflected the diversity of the communities served.
In February, the Education Department issued standard form letters to grant recipients announcing the termination of funding, asserting that the programs “do not serve the best interests of the United States” by considering factors beyond “merit, fairness, and excellence,” and by permitting waste and fraud.
Eight states, including California and New York, filed lawsuits to prevent the funding cuts, claiming they would jeopardize urban and rural school districts, compelling them to hire “long-term substitutes, teachers with emergency credentials, and unlicensed teachers on waivers.”
Judge Myong J. Joun of the Federal District Court in Massachusetts temporarily permitted the grants to remain available while reviewing the lawsuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston denied a request from the Trump administration to overturn Judge Joun’s decision, stating that the government’s assertions were built on “speculation and hyperbole.”
In obstructing the cancellation of the grants temporarily, Judge Joun aimed to preserve the status quo, noting that failing to do so would lead to the dismantling of many programs vital to public schools, universities, students, teachers, and faculty. Conversely, he argued that pausing the action would merely allow groups to continue receiving funds previously allocated by Congress.
In its brief ruling, the court indicated that the challengers had “not refuted” the Trump administration’s assertion that “it is unlikely to recover the grant funds once they are disbursed.” Conversely, the court stated, “the government compellingly argues that respondents would not suffer irreparable harm” during the pause of the grants. The court noted it had based its assessment on statements from the challengers indicating “they have the financial capacity to keep their programs operational.”
In her dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argued that allowing the termination of the grants would “inflict significant harm on grantees — a fact that the government barely contests.”
She further remarked: “Even worse, the government does not even make an effort to defend the legality of its actions.”
Justice Elena Kagan, in her dissent, noted that the decisions made by the court would adversely affect teacher training initiatives.
“States have consistently indicated that losing these grants will compel them — indeed, has already compelled them — to diminish teacher training programs,” she stated.
When the Trump administration sought the Supreme Court’s intervention, Sarah M. Harris, the acting solicitor general, indicated in an emergency application that Judge Joun’s ruling was just one of many lower-court decisions obstructing government initiatives.
“The aim is clear: to halt the executive branch in its tracks and to prevent the administration from shifting direction on hundreds of billions of dollars in government spending that the executive branch considers contrary to the United States’ interests and fiscal health,” she commented.
She continued: “Only this court can correct the course — and the time to act is now.”
In response, the states argued that the justices should handle one dispute at a time.
The brief asserted that the cancellations of the grants were not accompanied by specific reasoning for each grant. The standard letters, they said, “failed to clarify how the grant-funded programs participated in any of the supposedly disqualifying activities.”
