Students help put away supplies at the end of a reading and writing lesson at the Head Start program run by Easterseals, an organization that gets about a third of its funding from the federal government, Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2025, in Miami. (AP Photo/Rebecca Blackwell, File)
The Supreme Court on Friday granted the Trump administration’s plea to cut hundreds of millions of dollars in teacher-training money as part of its anti-DEI efforts, while a lawsuit continues.
The justices split 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the three liberal justices in dissent.
The cuts to more than 100 programs had been temporarily blocked by a federal judge in Boston, who found that they were already affecting training programs aimed at addressing a nationwide teacher shortage. The federal appeals court in Boston turned away an appeal from the administration to allow them to resume.
The emergency appeal is among several the high court is considering in which the Justice Department argues that lower-court judges have improperly obstructed President Donald Trump’s agenda.
Friday’s order was the first time, in three attempts, that the nation’s highest court gave the administration what it wanted on an emergency basis.
U.S. District Judge Myong Joun issued a temporary restraining order sought by eight Democratic-led states that argued the cuts were likely driven by efforts from Trump’s administration to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
The Republican president also has signed an executive order calling for the dismantling of the Education Department, and his administration has already started overhauling much of its work, including cutting dozens of contracts it dismissed as “woke” and wasteful.
The two programs at issue — the Teacher Quality Partnership and Supporting Effective Educator Development — provide more than $600 million in grants for teacher preparation programs, often in subject areas such as math, science and special education, the states have argued. They said data has shown the programs had led to increased teacher retention rates and ensured that educators remain in the profession beyond five years.
Despite Joun’s finding that the programs already were being affected, the high court’s conservative majority wrote that the states can keep the programs running with their own money for now. By contrast, the majority said in an unsigned opinion, the federal government probably wouldn’t be able to recover the cash if it ultimately wins the lawsuit.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote in dissent that there was no reason for the court’s emergency intervention.
“Nowhere in its papers does the Government defend the legality of canceling the education grants at issue here,” Kagan wrote.
In a separate opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote, “It is beyond puzzling that a majority of Justices conceive of the government’s application as an emergency.”
The administration halted the programs without notice in February. Joun, an appointee of Democratic President Joe Biden, found that the cancellations probably violated a federal law that requires a clear explanation.
The appellate panel that rejected the administration’s request for a stay also was made up of judges appointed by Democrats.
California is leading the ongoing lawsuit, joined by Massachusetts, New Jersey, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York and Wisconsin.
Boston Public Schools have already had to fire several full-time employees due to the loss of grant funding, and the College of New Jersey has also canceled the rest of its teacher-residency program. California State University has ended support for two dozen students in a similar program, and eliminated financial assistance for 50 incoming students.