A divided Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration by allowing officials to block $65 million in teacher development grants frozen over concerns they were promoting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) practices.
The 5-4 emergency ruling, for now, lifts a lower order that forced the Education Department to resume the grants in eight Democratic-led states that are suing.
Five of the court’s six conservatives sided with the administration to grant the request. Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s three liberal justices dissented.
The decision is not a final ruling in the case, and the dispute could ultimately return to the Supreme Court. Friday’s order enables the administration to keep the grants blocked until any appeals are resolved.
“Respondents have represented in this litigation that they have the financial wherewithal to keep their programs running. So, if respondents ultimately prevail, they can recover any wrongfully withheld funds through suit in an appropriate forum,” the majority said it its unsigned ruling.
In February, the administration began canceling disbursements under two federal education grants aimed at developing educators and combatting teacher shortages: the Teacher Quality Partnership Program and the Supporting Effective Educator Development Program.
Officials have cast the freezes as part of the administration’s broader crackdown on DEI, and it also comes as Trump and Education Secretary Linda McMahon look to effectively gut the department.
U.S. District Judge Myong Joun, an appointee of former President Obama who serves in Boston, issued a March 10 temporary restraining order mandating the administration immediately resume the grant programs in the eight states.
The Trump administration’s Supreme Court emergency appeal comes after a three-judge panel on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to lift Joun’s ruling.
The chief justice did not explain his dissent, but the court’s three liberals chastised the majority for getting involved at the early stage of the case.
“The risk of error increases when this Court decides cases—as here—with barebones briefing, no argument, and scarce time for reflection,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a two-paragraph solo dissent.