Trump Secures Significant Supreme Court Victory — DEI Funding Faces Setback

The Supreme Court delivered a notable victory for the Trump administration on Friday by pausing a federal judge’s decision out of Massachusetts that would have forced the Department of Education to distribute $65 million in grants, many of which supported diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.

The ruling comes as a counter to ongoing Democratic efforts to, as critics argue, chip away at President Donald Trump’s constitutional authority through judicial means.

In a brief, unsigned three-page per curiam opinion, the Court’s 5-4 majority ruled that the states challenging the administration — led by California — failed to effectively dispute the government’s claim that once disbursed, the grant funds would be “unlikely to [be] recover[ed].”

Additionally, the federal government “compellingly argues that respondents [California et al.] would not suffer irreparable harm while the [temporary restraining order requiring the payments] is stayed,” the decision noted. The Court referenced that the states “have the financial wherewithal to keep their programs running” throughout the litigation process.

The justices concluded that, “if respondents ultimately prevail, they can recover any wrongfully withheld funds through suit in an appropriate forum. And if respondents instead decline to keep the programs operating, then any ensuing irreparable harm would be of their own making.”

Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the Court’s liberal wing — Justices Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Sonia Sotomayor — in indicating he would have denied the administration’s request to block the payments.

Justice Kagan stated in her dissent, “Nowhere in its papers does the Government defend the legality of canceling the education grants at issue here.”

Justice Jackson, joined by Sotomayor, added: “This Court’s eagerness to insert itself into this early stage of ongoing litigation over the lawfulness of the Department’s actions — even when doing so facilitates the infliction of significant harms on the Plaintiff States, and even though the Government has not bothered to press any argument that the Department’s harm‐causing conduct is lawful — is equal parts unprincipled and unfortunate. It is also entirely unwarranted.”

Roberts, while dissenting, did not issue a written opinion but simply noted his position.

According to SCOTUS Blog, the liberal-leaning First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston had previously denied the administration’s request to stay the order from District Judge Myong Joun — an appointee of President Joe Biden — which required the grant payouts.

SCOTUS Blog also reported that “Eight states, led by California, filed a lawsuit in federal court in Massachusetts in early March. They contended that universities and nonprofits in their states had received grants through the programs, and that the Department of Education had violated the federal law governing administrative agencies when it ended those grants.”

On March 24, Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris submitted an emergency petition to the Supreme Court. In it, she warned that without the Court’s intervention, lower courts could continue to “order[] the Executive Branch to restore lawfully terminated grants across the government, keep paying for programs that the Executive Branch views as inconsistent with the interests of the United States, and send out the door taxpayer money that may never be clawed back.”

She urged the Court to intervene, calling for an end to what she described as “federal district courts’ unconstitutional reign as self-appointed managers of Executive Branch funding and grant-disbursement decisions.”

Harris also raised a broader question, quoting Justice Samuel Alito: “‘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?”

Commenting on the outcome during a Fox News appearance, former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi called the case a key moment: “This particular one … was very important because the court said that President Trump can control where our tax dollars go and what they’re allocated for. And we do not have to spend them on DEI, and that’s what was happening.”

She emphasized the broader implications: “So the ramifications of that are huge for our country, and that impacts every single agency.”

Bondi also pointed out the scale of legal resistance the Trump administration has faced, saying over 170 lawsuits have been filed, with 50 injunctions issued. “That should be the constitutional crisis, right there,” she added.

This latest decision from the Supreme Court could signal a shift in momentum, reinforcing Trump's executive authority amid a wave of legal challenges from Democratic-led states.