Supreme Court Sides With Trump, Will Allow Admin To Freeze Teacher Grants
The Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a significant legal win on Friday, marking his first major courtroom success since his return to office. The decision permits his administration to temporarily suspend millions in federal funding earmarked for addressing teacher shortages in various states.
In a close 5-4 ruling, the court’s conservative majority backed the administration. Chief Justice John Roberts broke from the group, aligning with the three liberal justices in dissent.
According to the unsigned opinion, the justices determined that the states had enough financial stability to continue their education programs without federal assistance. At the same time, they acknowledged the administration’s argument that any money distributed amid ongoing litigation would likely be unrecoverable, CNN reported.
Should the states prevail in the case, the justices wrote, “they can recover any wrongfully withheld funds through” additional legal proceedings, CNN added.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson disagreed with the decision and each contributed to dissenting opinions that outlined their objections. Roberts expressed that he would have rejected the administration’s request but did not elaborate further.
The court’s majority consisted of the five conservative 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 and Georgetown Law professor Steve Vladeck.
Vladeck continued: “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 while freezing the order in this specific case. And even that was a bridge too far for Chief Justice Roberts and the three Democratic appointees.” He added that “it’s a victory for the government, but a short-lived one that may soon be overtaken by far more significant losses in the other pending cases in which Trump has asked the justices to intervene.”
How much the ruling will matter in practice remains to be seen, since some of the contested grant money may have already been distributed.
Nevertheless, the majority addressed an important legal nuance: the dispute stemmed from a temporary restraining order (TRO), which is typically not appealable. By agreeing to hear the case, the Court indicated a potential shift in how emergency orders related to Trump-era policies might be reviewed going forward, according to CNN.
The justices suggested this specific TRO resembled a preliminary injunction — a more expansive and appealable form of court order — thereby opening the door for the administration to contest similar rulings that currently hinder parts of its agenda, CNN noted.
The majority also supported the administration’s stance that the judge who issued the TRO may have lacked the legal authority to do so.
They cited an exemption under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which is the framework the states used to contest the suspension of the grants.
The Trump administration sought to halt the grants, arguing the funds were tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs — a frequent, albeit loosely defined, target in Trump’s policy agenda. Eight Democratic-led states, including California, Illinois, and New York, filed suit in response, as they rely heavily on the funds.
A federal judge in Boston blocked the freeze temporarily, and that ruling was upheld by an appellate court. Last week, the administration appealed to the Supreme Court through its emergency docket, CNN reported.
The administration’s legal strategy emphasized a point it has been pushing publicly and in court: that no single district judge should have the authority to impose nationwide decisions, even temporarily.
“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 justices.