Supreme Court allows Trump halt millions of dollars in teacher training grants
EMERGENCY DOCKET
The Supreme Court put on hold an order by a federal judge in Massachusetts that would have required the Department of Education to reinstate more than $65 million in grants it terminated in February because they funded programs that included diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. (Katie Barlow)
The Supreme Court on Friday afternoon put on hold an order by a federal judge in Massachusetts that would have required the Department of Education to reinstate more than $65 million in grants that it terminated in February because they funded programs that included diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.
In an unsigned three-page opinion, a majority of the court explained that the government likely would not be able to get the funds back once they were disbursed. Moreover, the majority added, the recipients of the funds would not be permanently harmed if the funds are withheld while the litigation continues.
The vote was 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts indicating that he would have denied the government’s request. Justice Elena Kagan dissented, calling the court’s ruling a “mistake.” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in an opinion joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, also dissented, writing that it was “beyond puzzling that a majority of the Justices conceive of the Government’s application as an emergency.”
At issue in the case are two grant programs intended to address a nationwide shortage of teachers. The Department of Education canceled all but five of the 109 grants after reviews found “objectionable” diversity and equity training material in the recipient programs.
Eight states, led by California, filed a lawsuit in federal court in Massachusetts in early March. They claimed that universities and non-profits in their state had received grants from the programs and that the Department of Education violated federal law governing administrative agency when it terminated those grants. The federal district court judge issued a temporary injunction that required the government reinstate the grants it had terminated within the states that brought the lawsuit. The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene on March 24. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris asserted that unless the justices intervened, federal courts around the country will continue to exceed their powers “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 appealed to the justices to “put a swift end to federal district courts’ unconstitutional reign as self-appointed managers of Executive Branch funding and grant-disbursement decisions.”
California and the other states urged the court to stay out of the dispute. The majority concluded that the government cannot appeal the district court’s order, and in any event, the government’s appeal will be moot (that is, no longer a live controversy) by early April. In its Friday order granting Trump’s request, the majority noted that while temporary orders such as the one Joun entered in this case would not normally be appealable, they could still weigh in because the order had “many of the hallmarks” of a preliminary order that can be appealed. The majority explained that although the law waives federal immunity from lawsuits in general, it is only a limited waiver that does not apply to court order that would require the Government to pay money to fulfill a contractual obligation. The majority explained that another federal law, the Tucker Act, gives the Court of Federal Claims the power to hear cases arising from contracts made with the United States. The government argues (and the state do not dispute this) that once the funds have been disbursed it is unlikely to be able recover them. By contrast, the majority stressed, the states have indicated that they have enough money to be able to continue their programs without the federal funding while the litigation moves forward.
Kagan complained that the government had not defended “the legality of canceling the education grants at issue” in this case. She continued that the states that are challenging the termination of these grants have stated that they will be forced to curtail their teacher training programs if the grant is terminated. This conclusion, she said, was “at least under-developed and very possibly incorrect.” Kagan acknowledged that fast action can be necessary, “despite the risks.” But she felt “nothing in this case demanded immediate intervention.” Rather than make new law on our emergency docket,” she concluded, “we should have allowed the dispute to proceed in the ordinary way.”
Jackson called what she characterized as the majority’s “eagerness to insert itself into this early stage of ongoing litigation over the lawfulness” of the Department of Education’s actions “equal parts unprincipled and unfortunate.” Noting that Joun’s order will expire in just three days, she emphasized that it only bars the government from implementing a “mass termination” of grants; it does not prohibit the government from deciding, under its normal review process, to terminate individual grants.
Moreover, she continued, “there is no evidence that grantees have rushed to draw down the remaining $65 million in grant funds” in the 25 days since the order was entered. But if they did, she added, the government does have mechanisms to recover those funds.
Jackson criticized both the government’s decision to seek emergency relief without addressing the merits of the challenge and her colleagues’ decision to grant it, “If the emergency docket has now become a vehicle for certain defendants to obtain this Court’s real-time opinion about lower court rulings on various auxiliary matters, we should announce that new policy and be prepared to shift how we think about, and address, these kinds of applications.”
Finally, she insisted that the harm to the states challenging the grant terminations is – contrary to the majority’s suggestion – real. “In Massachusetts,” for example, she wrote, “Boston Public Schools has already had to fire multiple full-time employees due to this loss of grant-funding.”
This article was originally published at Howe on the Court.
