Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday allowed the Trump administration to proceed with canceling millions in federal education grants, arguing that these funds supported diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.
The high court issued a 5-4 decision, agreeing to a request from the Justice Department to pause a federal district court ruling that mandated the Department of Education to reinstate grants awarded to universities and nonprofit organizations across eight states. The unsigned opinion noted that this stay would remain in effect as legal proceedings continue.
“Respondents have indicated in this litigation that they possess the financial capability to sustain their programs. Therefore, if they ultimately prevail, they can reclaim any funds wrongfully withheld through appropriate legal channels,” the court stated. “Should they choose not to continue these programs, any resulting irreparable harm would be self-inflicted.”
Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the three liberal justices in dissent.
Justice Elena Kagan criticized the court’s decision as a “mistake,” asserting that the Trump administration had not justified the legality of terminating the education grants central to the case. In a dissent joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed it was “beyond puzzling” that the majority considered the Justice Department’s request for intervention an emergency.
“The harms stemming from allowing the department to uphold these terminations directly contradict Congress’s intentions when establishing the TQP and SEED programs and permitting the department to oversee their implementation,” Jackson articulated. “It is baffling to compare the severe consequences of such abrupt funding cuts with the mere possibility that some grantees may seek to collect previously promised funds that the department intends to withdraw.”
Jackson described the court’s decision to grant relief to the Trump administration as “unprincipled and unfortunate,” characterizing it as “entirely unwarranted.”
This legal conflict concerning the administration’s termination of grants represents the latest challenge to President Trump’s second-term policies to reach the Supreme Court, which holds a 6-3 conservative majority. The Trump administration’s attempts to cut federal assistance and foreign aid have encountered repeated setbacks in the courts.
Currently, there are three additional requests for relief from the Justice Department pending Supreme Court action, with more emergency appeals anticipated as the president faces multiple lawsuits targeting his second-term agenda.
The dispute over Education Department funding concerns up to $65 million in grants distributed through the Teacher Quality Partnership program and the Supporting Effective Educator Development program, both aimed at supporting teacher recruitment and training.
In early February, the acting secretary of education initiated an internal review of the department’s grant distributions to ensure they did not support DEI practices, which the Trump administration alleges are discriminatory.
The Education Department ultimately determined that 104 grants should be terminated as they were deemed misaligned with its policy objectives, according to the Justice Department. Five grants were retained, as per their statement.
In response to the grant cancellations, eight states filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, seeking a federal district court to grant temporary relief while the case unfolded. The states—California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin—argued that organizations within their jurisdictions benefitted from the grants and contended that the terminations violated federal law governing agency rulemaking.
U.S. District Judge Myong Joun issued a temporary restraining order, effective until April 7, mandating the government to reinstate the grants to recipients in the eight states. The court also temporarily prohibited the government from reaffirming the terminations or canceling any additional awards for groups in those states.
The Trump administration subsequently requested the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit to suspend that order, which it declined to do. The Justice Department then sought emergency intervention from the Supreme Court.
In filings to the justices, acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris contended that the district court’s order raises the question of whether a district court judge can compel the government to distribute millions in taxpayer money.
“Unless and until this court addresses that issue, federal district courts will continue transcending their jurisdiction by mandating the executive branch to restore lawfully terminated grants government-wide, fund programs that the executive branch deems inconsistent with national interests, and distribute taxpayer funds that may never be recovered,” she asserted.
Harris urged the Supreme Court to swiftly terminate federal district courts’ “unconstitutional dominance” as self-appointed overseers of executive branch funding and grant distribution decisions.
In a separate matter, the Supreme Court rejected a previous attempt from the Trump administration to suspend an order demanding that it payout approximately $2 billion in foreign aid to organizations funded by the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development.
In legal filings with the Supreme Court, attorneys for the states argued that the Justice Department’s concerns relate more appropriately to other cases in which courts are addressing a multitude of legal challenges stemming from Trump’s executive actions.
“Those issues should be litigated within the framework of those other cases,” the states emphasized in their filing. “They offer no justification for this court to grant emergency relief in the current situation, where the district court has rightly issued a narrow and temporary order to maintain the status quo while adjudicating the preliminary injunction motion that was discussed earlier today.”
Representatives for the states noted that the grant recipients are cultivating a steady influx of qualified teachers for local schools within their states and cautioned that if the awards were revoked, the programs could face significant reductions or complete shutdowns.
“The potential harm that defendants may experience from the temporary restraining order in the remaining days before its expiration is vastly outweighed by the immediate detriment the states will endure if the order is stayed or vacated,” they asserted.
