A closely divided Supreme Court issued an order on Friday that allowed the Trump administration to advance with the cancellation of federal funds for teacher training initiatives in eight states, raising a temporary restriction order by a judge of the District Court that had said that payments should continue.
In a firm opinion of Curiam, a majority of justice concluded that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to listen to the claims of the states and that the government should receive deference to retain the money as the litigation continues on it.
Four judges, the president of the Supreme Court John Roberts and the three liberal judges of the Court, indicated that they would have denied Trump’s request.
The eight states involved in the case are: California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York and Wisconsin.
“[The states] They have represented in this litigation that the financial means have to maintain their programs in operation. So, yes [they] Ultimately, they prevail, they can recover any retained funds unjustly through the lawsuit in an appropriate forum, “most of the court wrote.” And if respondents instead refuse to keep the programs in operation, then any subsequent irreparable damage would be their own creation. “
The decision is the first substantive decision of the Supreme Court on a challenge to a Trump executive action in his second term.
The Supreme Court is seen in Capitol Hill in Washington, on December 17, 2024.
J. Scott Applewhite/AP, file
He also notes that the Superior Court is potentially inclined to put Trump on similar pending demands for the cancellation of federal subsidies, contracts and programs that had been authorized by Congress.
“The Tucker Law grants the court of jurisdiction of federal claims on lawsuits based on any express or implicit contract with the United States,” the court wrote.
The states had argued in the District Court that by abruptly canceling teachers’ training subsidies, granted to public schools and universities throughout the country through the Department of Education, Trump had violated the Law of Administrative Procedures, which requires an adequate evaluation of notification and impact before implementing an important change of policy.
Judge Elena Kagan, in dissent, said that the impact of the decision would not be insignificant.
“The states have constantly represented that the loss of these grants will force them, in fact, it has already forced them to reduce teachers training programs,” he wrote.
The programs in question total more than $ 600 million throughout the country with special emphasis on the training of teachers for mathematics, sciences and special education. The Trump administration arrested programs in February by citing aspects that promote diversity, equity and inclusion.
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson said his colleagues intervened unnecessarily in the housing too soon.
“The eagerness of this Court to insert at this early stage of ongoing litigation on the legality of the actions of the department, even when doing so facilitates the infiction of significant damage in the plaintiff’s states, and although the Government has not bothered to press any argument that the conduct of cause for the damage of the department is legal is an equal part of non -incipient and unfortunate,” he wrote. “It is also completely unjustified. We usually do not exercise jurisdiction on [temporary restraining orders]And this is no different. “
