On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration, permitting the cuts of hundreds of millions of dollars in teacher-training funds while a legal challenge remains ongoing.
This 5-4 decision represents a significant step in the administration’s wider strategy to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Chief Justice John Roberts departed from the conservative bloc, siding with the three liberal justices in dissent.
Newsweek contacted the Department of Education for comment via email on Friday afternoon.
Importance of the Decision
This ruling arrives amidst numerous challenges to the Trump administration’s extensive reforms within the federal government since the inauguration on January 20, with the president voicing dissatisfaction with District Court judges who have sought to, and in some cases succeeded in, blocking various policies spanning from immigration to education.
Win McNamee/Getty Images
Key Information
The focus is on two federal grant programs—the Teacher Quality Partnership and Supporting Effective Educator Development—which allocate over $600 million each year to support teacher preparation, especially in critical areas like math, science, and special education. Eight states led by Democrats challenging these cuts claim that the programs have improved teacher retention and contributed to addressing the national teacher shortage.
The administration abruptly halted the funding in February without prior public notice. U.S. District Judge Myong Joun, appointed by President Joe Biden, temporarily blocked the cuts, ruling that they likely violated federal law by not providing a clear justification. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston supported the injunction, denying the Trump administration’s plea to lift the block.
By granting the emergency appeal, the Supreme Court’s decision now allows the administration to continue with the funding cuts while the case unfolds. The majority argued that the states could use their own resources to sustain the programs in the meantime, highlighting that the federal government would likely be unable to recover the funds if it ultimately prevails.
Roberts’ decision to side with his liberal counterparts follows a previous rebuke of the president when Trump called for the dismissal of another judge who imposed a Temporary Restraining Order on his enforcement of the Alien Enemies Act.
This case is among several instances where the Justice Department contends that lower courts are inappropriately obstructing Trump’s policy objectives. The administration has been proactive in dismantling what it perceives as “woke” programs, even canceling numerous Education Department contracts it saw as unnecessary. Trump has also signed an executive order aimed at completely dismantling the department.
Joun’s restraining order was requested by California and seven additional states—Massachusetts, New Jersey, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin—which allege that the cuts are politically motivated and part of a larger agenda to eliminate DEI-related initiatives in education.
Public Reactions
Justice Elena Kagan, in her dissenting statement: “Granting this emergency application is a misstep for the Court. The Government fails to provide a legal defense for canceling the education grants at stake here.”
Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, in their dissenting statement: “The Court’s eagerness to intervene at this early stage of ongoing litigation regarding the legality of the Department’s actions—even when it causes significant harm to the Plaintiff States, and despite the Government’s lack of any argument asserting the legality of its harmful actions—is both unprincipled and regrettable.”
The Justice Department, in court filings: “The Executive Branch faces systemic and irreparable constitutional harm from the judiciary’s overreach into executive functions concerning how and when agencies will distribute or cancel grants. Even the court of appeals recognized the government ‘may face some irreparable harm if it cannot recover this money.’
Future Developments
The legal conflict will persist, but following the Supreme Court’s ruling, the administration is permitted to implement the funding cuts while the underlying lawsuit continues to navigate through the judicial system.
Reporting by the Associated Press contributed to this article.
