On Friday, the Supreme Court let the Trump Administration cancel Education Department grants for teacher training programs breaching its policy banning diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts at the federal level.
The 5-4 ruling reverses a lower court decision by a Massachusetts-based federal judge stating the administration had not followed the appropriate legal procedure in cancelling the awards. Approximately $65 million in award payments are still due.
While Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the three liberals in dissent, five of the court’s conservative members constituted the majority view.
Friday’s ruling determined that the district court judge lacked power under a federal provision known as the Administrative Procedure Act to command payment of the monies. Justices said that the administration “compellingly argues” that the entities slated to get the money would not experience “irreparable harm” from the payments being withheld.
Justice Elena Kagan, in a dissenting opinion, challenged the finding and said that without the money the organisations in issue would be compelled to cease certain of their programmes. She said, “Nowhere in its papers does the government defend the legality of canceling the education grants at issue here.”
Two grant programs meant to solve a national lack of teachers are at stake in the lawsuit. Reviews uncovered “objectionable” DEI themes in the training courses, prompting the Department of Education to revoke all but five of the 109 awards. One instance of the taxpayer-funded courses had instructors informing young babies and toddlers they could already be categorized as racists.
Early March, eight states headed by California sued in federal court in Massachusetts. According to a case description from SCOTUS Blog, they said the Department of Education had broken federal rules controlling administrative agencies when it terminated those awards, claiming colleges and charities in their states had obtained program-related grants.
A federal district judge then granted a temporary restraining order directing the administration to restore the grants in states participating with the action. U.S. District Judge Myong Joun further barred the government from carrying out further terminations in those states.
Though it did fast-track the case itself, a federal appeals court refused to place a hold on the order pending the administration’s appeal.
“The government is likely to establish, the majority added, that Joun lacks the ability to direct the government to make the payments under the federal legislation governing administrative agencies. The majority said, “Though that law waives the federal government’s general immunity from lawsuits, the waiver is a limited one that does not apply to court orders that would require the government to pay money for a contractual obligation,” SCOTUS Blog reported.
The majority finally decided that The Tucker Act grants the Court of Federal Claims, another court, the authority to handle contract-related actions against the United States.
Attorney General Pam Bondi said in reaction to the decision, “Today is a notable triumph for President Trump and the rule of law.”
This Supreme Court decision confirms what the Department of Justice has been contending for months: local district judges lack the authority to take control of taxpayer money, compel the government to distribute billions, or unilaterally stop President Trump’s policy agenda. Attorneys for the Department of Justice will keep battling to shield the executive branch against severe judicial overreach.
