Introduction to the Supreme Court’s Decision
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 Supreme Court’s Ruling
The justices split 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the three liberal justices in dissent. 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.
Background on the Case
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. The Supreme Court previously sided against the administration in another lawsuit over nearly $2 billion in foreign aid cuts in another divided 5-4 ruling, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett in the majority in both cases.
Implications of the Decision
It remains to be seen whether Friday’s decision marks a narrow win or a broader shift in Trump’s favor. The Trump administration is facing some 150 lawsuits in lower courts challenging his flurry of executive orders. That includes about two dozen over federal funding cuts, some totaling billions of dollars.
Details of the Teaching Training Case
The teaching training case deals with cuts to more than 100 programs. They 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. 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.
Programs Affected by the Cuts
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.
Reaction to the Decision
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.
Dissenting Opinions
“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.” Roberts joined neither dissent, noting only that he would have denied the appeal.
Conclusion
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. Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated the ruling as a “significant victory for President Trump and the rule of law.” 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.
FAQs
- Q: What was the Supreme Court’s decision regarding teacher-training grants?
A: The Supreme Court granted the Trump administration’s plea to cut hundreds of millions of dollars in teacher-training money. - Q: How did the justices vote on the decision?
A: The justices split 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the three liberal justices in dissent. - Q: What programs are affected by the cuts?
A: The two programs at issue are the Teacher Quality Partnership and Supporting Effective Educator Development, which provide over $600 million in grants for teacher preparation programs. - Q: How will the decision impact schools and students?
A: Schools have already had to fire employees and cancel programs due to the loss of grant funding, and students will lose financial assistance. - Q: What is the next step in the lawsuit?
A: The lawsuit, led by California and joined by several other states, will continue as the states argue against the cuts to the teacher-training programs.
