Last Friday afternoon, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled in favor of the Trump administration by placing a hold on a Temporary Restriction Order (TRO) issued by Federal District Judge Myong Joun. The TRO had required the Department of Education to reinstate more than $65 million in education grants, which the Trump administration had denied and terminated due to the connections of the grants in funding Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs and initiatives. The order compelled the U.S. government to honor its obligations to pay for the programs as well as fund future DEI programs and initiatives.
The court, in an unsigned three-page opinion, granted the Trump administration’s request to place a hold on the order, arguing that if the funds were disbursed, the government would likely be unable to recover them later, while the respondents would not incur financial damages during the litigation process. The opinion, written as a “per curiam” opinion, was joined by Justices Barett, Alito, Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Gorsuch, who are members of the Court’s conservative bloc. Dissenting to the opinion were Chief Justice Roberts and the three liberal Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. Chief Justice Roberts would have denied the application, while Justices Kagan and Jackson wrote dissenting opinions.
According to ScotusBlog, the issue of the case is two major grant programs used by the Department of Education to address the problem of a nationwide shortage of school teachers. The Department of Education, after reviewing, canceled five out of the 109 federal grants due to concerns about DEI programs in the recipient schools. Eight states, led by California, filed a lawsuit against the Department of Education in the U.S. District Court of the District of Massachusetts, citing damages against universities and institutions in their respective states. California Attorney General Robert Bonda argued that the terminations violated federal law, specifically the Administrative Procedure Act, further stating that “the Trump administration is pursuing an anti-education agenda that would yank teachers out of schools and prevent new teachers-in-training who are close to being ready to serve our students from filling empty classrooms.” In his opinion, Judge Joun stated his rationale for issuing a TRO, writing that he found the Department of Education’s block of education grants caused “irreparable harm” to students as well as negatively affecting the efficacy of teachers and staff of the recipient schools.
The Supreme Court’s majority decision also stated that Judge Joun and the District Court of Massachusetts likely lacked the proper jurisdiction to even hear the case. The majority notes that although the APA waives immunity for lawsuits concerning federal government payments, the APA’s waiver of immunity, according to the majority opinion, does not apply to disputes on the contractual obligations of the U.S. government, citing the Tucker Act as the appropriate legislative remedy through the U.S. Court of Claims. Justices Kagan and Jackson disputed the Court’s decision, arguing that the Government has not effectively proven the need for an emergency place on the order, with Justice Kagan stating that “nothing about this case demanded our immediate intervention.” Furthermore, Justice Jackson argued that the Court was too “eager” to assert itself in granting the case in the emergency docket, stating that “even if the government is right about the merits of the arguments it raises in this application, there is no reason why the government cannot proceed through the usual litigation and appeals process.”
Attorney General Bonda has responded to the Court’s decision in a press release issued by the California Department of Justice, vowing to respect the court’s process and continue litigating through lower courts of appeal. He stated, “California and our multistate coalition remain committed to fighting so that our kids…have access to qualified, talented teachers and a quality education.”
