The Trump administration came to the Supreme Court on Wednesday morning, asking the justices to pause an order by a federal judge in Massachusetts that requires the Department of Education to reinstate more than $65 million in training grants meant to address teacher shortages that it terminated in February because they funded programs that have diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.
Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris portrayed the lawsuit, which was filed in March by eight states (California, along with Massachusetts, New Jersey, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin) as part of a broader problem – specifically, “a flood of recent suits that raise the question: ‘Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever)’ millions in taxpayer dollars?”
The case centers on two grant programs for teacher recruitment, training, and professional development. In early February, the Department of Education canceled almost all of the grants – 104 out of 109 – because reviews found “objectionable” material relating to DEI in them.
The challenging states went to federal court in Massachusetts in early March, alleging that universities and nonprofits in their states had received grants through the programs, and that the termination of the grants violated the federal law governing administrative agencies.
After a hearing on March 10, U.S. District Judge Myong Joun issued a temporary order that required the government to reinstate the grants that it had terminated in the states bringing the lawsuit, and he barred the government from implementing other terminations in those states.
Joun explained that if he denied the temporary relief that the states were seeking, “dozens of programs upon which public schools, public universities, students, teachers, and faculty rely will be gutted.” But if on the other hand he granted the temporary relief, the department would simply have to “disburse funds that Congress has appropriated to the States and others.”
The United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit declined to put the district court’s order on hold while the government appealed, but it agreed to fast-track the appeal itself.
Meanwhile, a federal district court in Maryland has also ordered the Department of Education to reinstate terminated grants in a different lawsuit.
In its plea for the justices to block Joun’s order, the Trump administration complained that Joun had issued a temporary order “without awaiting briefing from the government or correctly assuring itself of its” authority to consider the case. Then, it contended, Joun had extended his temporary order “for up to two more weeks, until” it rules on the states’ request for a preliminary injunction, which would reinstate the grants indefinitely, until Joun rules on the merits of the states’ request or it is overturned by a higher court.
Until the Supreme Court weighs in, Harris asserted, federal courts around the country will continue to act beyond their authority “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.” The justices, Harris pleaded, “should put a swift end to federal district courts’ unconstitutional reign as self-appointed managers of Executive Branch funding and grant-disbursement decisions.”
Nationwide injunctions have become a popular target in recent weeks, particularly among supporters of the president’s agenda. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, announced on Wednesday that he would chair a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on nationwide injunctions next week. “The practice of sweeping nationwide injunctions, broad restraining orders, and judicial policymaking must end,” he said.
Harris also asked the court to issue an administrative stay, which would put Joun’s order on hold while the justices consider the government’s request.
This post is also published on SCOTUSblog.
