...
By Dan Gooding and Gabe Whisnant
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday sided with the Trump administration, allowing it to proceed with cutting hundreds of millions of dollars in teacher-training funds while a legal challenge continues.
The decision, a 5-4 ruling, marks a significant development in the administration's broader effort to dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Chief Justice John Roberts broke from the court's conservative majority, joining the three liberal justices in dissent.
Newsweek reached out to the Department of Education for comment via email Friday afternoon.
Read More
Donald Trump’s Tariffs May Be a Win for China5 min read
Kamala Harris Was ‘Completely Shocked’ She Lost to Trump—New Book5 min read
Republican Senator Warns Trump Tariffs May Spur ‘Political Decimation’5 min read
Why It Matters
Friday's decision comes amid a litany of challenges to the Trump administration's sweeping changes to the federal government since the January 20 inauguration, with the president expressing displeasure at District Court judges who have attempted to, and in some cases succeeded in, blocking various policies from immigration to education.
...
What To Know
At issue are two federal grant programs—the Teacher Quality Partnership and Supporting Effective Educator Development—which provide over $600 million annually to support teacher preparation, particularly in critical fields like math, science and special education. Eight Democratic-led states challenging the cuts argue that the programs have boosted teacher retention and helped address the national teacher shortage.
The administration halted the funding abruptly in February, without public notice. U.S. District Judge Myong Joun, appointed by President Joe Biden, temporarily blocked the move, ruling that it likely violated federal law by failing to offer a clear justification. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston upheld the block, rejecting the Trump administration's request to lift the pause.
The Supreme Court's decision to grant the emergency appeal now allows the administration to proceed with the cuts while the case plays out. The majority reasoned that the states could continue funding the programs with their own resources in the interim and noted that the federal government likely wouldn't be able to recover the funds if it eventually prevails.
Roberts siding with his liberal colleagues comes after he rebuked the president a few weeks ago when Trump sought the removal of another judge who placed a Temporary Restraining Order on his use of the Alien Enemies Act.
The case is one of several in which the Justice Department argues that lower courts are improperly obstructing Trump's policy agenda. The administration has been aggressive in dismantling what it characterizes as "woke" programs, including canceling dozens of Education Department contracts it deemed unnecessary. Trump has also signed an executive order to dismantle the department altogether.
Joun's restraining order was sought by California and seven other states—Massachusetts, New Jersey, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York and Wisconsin—which allege that the cuts are politically motivated and part of a broader effort to eliminate DEI-related initiatives in education.
What People Are Saying
Justice Elena Kagan, in her dissenting motion: "It is a mistake for the Court to grant this emergency application. Nowhere in its papers does the Government defend the legality of canceling the education grants at issue here."
Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, in their dissenting motion: "This Court's eagerness to insert itself into this early stage of ongoing litigation over the lawfulness of the Department's actions—even when doing so facilitates the infliction of significant harms on the Plaintiff States, and even though the Government has not bothered to press any argument that the Department's harm‐causing conduct is lawful—is equal parts unprincipled and unfortunate."
The Justice Department, in court filings: "Beyond the systemic, irreparable constitutional harm to the Executive Branch from judicial arrogation of executive functions as to how and when agencies will disburse or cancel grants, even the court of appeals acknowledged that the government 'may incur some irreparable harm if it cannot recoup this money.'"
What Happens Next
The legal battle continues, but with the Supreme Court's ruling, the administration can move forward with the funding cuts while the underlying lawsuit proceeds through the courts.
Reporting by the Associated Press contributed to this story.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines