The Supreme Court has made a significant decision to support the Trump administration’s request to cut teacher-training funds, aligning with its approach against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. This ruling, delivered by a slim 5-4 majority, saw Chief Justice John Roberts align with the dissenting liberal justices. The emergency appeal originates from a number of cases where the Justice Department argues that lower court rulings have hindered former President Donald Trump’s policy agenda.
This decision marks the first instance in which the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Trump administration’s emergency appeals, after previously rejecting the administration’s stance in similar cases. A previously divided 5-4 decision thwarted Trump’s proposal to trim nearly $2 billion in foreign aid, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett among the majority backing that decision.
The outcome of this case could potentially signify a broader legal victory for Trump amidst a flurry of around 150 legal challenges targeting his numerous executive orders. These include significant disputes over federal funding cuts which extend into the billions. The present case specifically addresses the administration’s abrupt cessation of over 100 educational programs, an action temporarily blocked by a federal judge in Boston.
U.S. District Judge Myong Joun had earlier issued a temporary restraining order blocking the cuts, reasoning they would negatively impact programs aimed at mitigating the nationwide teacher shortage. The legal challenge, initiated by eight Democratic-led states, argues that the cuts were intended as a move against DEI programs promoted through these educational funds.
An appeal by the administration to resume the cuts was rejected by the federal appeals court in Boston. This rejection comes amidst Trump’s broader actions, including an executive order targeting the dismantling of the Education Department and slashing contracts deemed “woke” and unnecessary.
The contested programs, specifically the Teacher Quality Partnership and Supporting Effective Educator Development, provide substantial financial backing for teacher preparation initiatives. These programs are crucial in fields like math, science, and special education, reportedly boosting retention rates among educators who remain in the profession beyond five years.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority suggested that states could temporarily continue funding the programs independently. In contrast, they noted that if the federal government prevails in the lawsuit, recovering the halted funds would be challenging.
Justice Elena Kagan expressed strong opposition in her dissent, questioning the urgency of the court’s intervention, arguing no legal basis for ending the grants. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also expressed puzzlement over the court’s perception of the administration’s move as an emergency. Chief Justice Roberts, though not joining Kagan’s and Jackson’s dissents, indicated he would have denied the appeal.
These education programs were suspended by the administration without prior notice in February. Judge Joun, appointed under President Joe Biden, determined that this violated a federal requirement for clear explanation. The appellate court supporting Judge Joun’s order consisted of judges appointed by Democrats.
Attorney General Pam Bondi hailed the Supreme Court’s decision as a major triumph for Trump and the integrity of the law. The legal battle, spearheaded by California with Massachusetts, New Jersey, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin joining, continues.
The funding cuts have led to real consequences, with Boston Public Schools dismissing key staff and institutions like the College of New Jersey and California State University having to curtail or terminate student-teaching support programs due to vanished grants.