Supreme Court Sides With Trump, Will Allow Admin To Freeze Teacher Grants
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday handed President Donald J. Trump a significant legal victory, allowing his administration to temporarily halt millions in federal grant money allocated to states for addressing teacher shortages.
In a narrow 5-4 decision, the Court sided with the Trump administration, while Chief Justice John Roberts joined the three liberal justices in dissent. The ruling gives the federal government temporary relief as litigation over the grants continues.
In its unsigned opinion, the Court noted that the states had sufficient financial resources to continue their programs independently. However, the justices agreed that the administration had presented a compelling argument that any funds distributed during the ongoing legal dispute would likely be unrecoverable.
“If the states ultimately prevail, they can recover any wrongfully withheld funds through further litigation,” the Court stated.
The dissenting justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — either authored or joined opinions criticizing the majority’s decision. Roberts, while siding with the dissent, declined to elaborate on his reasoning.
The conservative majority included Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.
“This is unquestionably a win for the Trump administration, but on remarkably narrow and modest terms,” said CNN Supreme Court analyst Steve Vladeck. “It leaves open the possibility that the plaintiffs are going to win not just this case but a bunch of other challenges to the government’s cancellation of grants.”
Implications for Trump’s Agenda
The practical impact of the ruling remains uncertain, as much of the disputed funding may already have been distributed. However, the Court addressed an important procedural issue: the case involved a temporary restraining order (TRO), typically considered an emergency measure not subject to appeal.
By agreeing to review it, the justices signaled a potential shift in how similar legal challenges to Trump administration policies could be handled in the future. The Court noted that the TRO in question functioned more like a preliminary injunction, which is broader and appealable — a decision that could help the administration contest other court orders blocking parts of Trump’s agenda.
The Court also sided with the administration’s argument that the trial court judge lacked the legal authority to issue the nationwide order in the first place, citing an exemption in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Trump moved to freeze the grants after determining the funds were tied to programs emphasizing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) — a frequent target of his administration. Eight Democratic-led states, including California, Illinois, and New York, which rely on the funding, filed suit.
A federal judge in Boston initially blocked the freeze, a decision upheld by the appeals court. Last week, the administration turned to the Supreme Court’s emergency docket, arguing that a single district court judge should not wield the power to dictate nationwide policy.
“This case exemplifies a flood of recent suits that raise the question: ‘Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) millions in taxpayer dollars?’” acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris told the Court.
The ruling represents a legal win for President Trump as he continues to push back against what he calls federal overreach and ideological spending in public education.