States’ lawsuit over Trump cuts to teacher grants survives

(CN) — A federal judge on Thursday rejected the Trump administration’s bid to broadly dismiss a lawsuit challenging its $600 million cuts to federal grants allocated for recruiting and training teachers.

In a 36-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley, a Joe Biden appointee in Boston’s federal court, found that a coalition of states can continue to pursue claims that the cuts are unconstitutional and in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act in her court.

But the states cannot try to claw back those funds in her court, the judge ruled, dismissing the remedies portion of the lawsuit for the Court of Federal Claims.

“When it is all said and done, grants to fund certain education programs were terminated,” Kelley said. “Today’s holding indicates this court lacks any power to bring these grants back.”

Still, it’s a win for the states. The Department of Education was seeking to dismiss the case outright, arguing that the eight suing states — New York, New Jersey, California, Massachusetts, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland and Wisconsin — are seeking breach-of-contract remedies more suitable for the federal claims court.

Kelley indicated Thursday that she agrees in part. She noted that she lacks jurisdiction to order that grant funding be restored, but she does have power to find whether the funding cuts were arbitrary and capricious pursuant to federal law.

“However, plaintiffs are not without remedy,” Kelley wrote. “If this court finds defendants’ actions were unlawful under the APA and the Constitution, the grantees in plaintiff states can file suit in the Court of Federal Claims to request their money damages under the contract.”

The eight states filed suit in March, accusing the Education Department of illegally slashing federal grants allocated for training teachers. The administration announced the cuts in February as part of a broader effort from President Donald Trump to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

The administration had claimed that the scrutinized funding was going toward training teachers on “divisive ideologies” like antiracism, which run afoul of the administration’s platform.

But the states claim this was an arbitrary and capricious decision that unlawfully eradicates federal grant programs designed to address nationwide teacher shortages. The two grants at issue, the Teacher Quality Partnership and Supporting Effective Educator Development, were established by Congress in 2008 and 2011, respectively, to recruit and train educators to work in high-need school districts around the country.

The states won a temporary restraining order in March to halt the funding cuts in a ruling that was later upheld by the First Circuit Court of Appeals. But the administration appealed the case up to the Supreme Court, which ruled in April that the government can disregard the lower court’s orders and plow ahead with the cuts.

Because of that ruling from the high court, the states are now in a more complicated position where — if they successfully prove that the cuts were unconstitutional and violate the APA — they’ll need to go to federal claims court to get the money back.

“This two-track litigation framework preserves binding authority and upholds the systemic stability intended by the doctrine of stare decisis,” Kelley wrote Thursday.

The judge noted that whether or not the states are successful is an issue that “will be taken up later in this litigation,” however.

“This is not to say that plaintiff states will succeed on their constitutional claims,” Kelley wrote. “The court has no opinion at this time on the merits of the constitutional claims.”

Without this funding, the eight suing states alone claim they lost out on $250 million for their education systems. Thousands of teachers’ salaries were funded through the grants, they say, warning that the terminated funding would worsen the national teacher shortage and destabilize local school systems.

Follow @Uebey Follow @uebey.bsky.social