On Friday, the Supreme Court temporarily suspended the Trump administration's $65 million teacher training grant. The government claims that it promotes diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, and is an early victory for the administration in front of justice.
The court order has not been signed. This is typical when justice acts on an emergency application. The temporary suspension takes effect while the lawsuit is appealed.
The decision was 5-4, with five court conservatives – Justice Amy Connie Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Attorney General Brett M. Cavanaugh. Director John G. Roberts Jr. voted for three Liberal judges in the court in dissent.
The order has called for the judiciary to intervene and overturn a lower court ruling that temporarily blocked some of Trump's agenda in response to one of a series of urgent requests by the Trump administration.
The problematic grants in this case helped to deploy teachers in poor and rural areas, and sought to recruit a diverse workforce that reflected the communities they served.
In February, the education department sent a boilerplate form letter from grant recipients, stating that by allowing waste and fraud, the program “cannot serve the US's greatest interests,” taking into account factors other than “merit, equity and excellence.”
Eight states, including California and New York, have argued that it would undermine both urban and rural school districts and halt the cuts, claiming they would require exemptions from “long-term alternatives, emergency-qualified teachers and unlicensed teachers.”
Massachusetts U.S. District Court J. Jun ordered the grant to be temporarily available while considering the case. The US First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the government's argument was based on “speculation and exaggeration,” and rejected a request from the Trump administration to revoke Jun's order.
When temporarily blocking subsidies cancellations, Joun said he tried to maintain the status quo. He wrote that if they did not, “dozens of programs relying on public schools, public universities, students, teachers and faculty will do their best.” Meanwhile, he reasoned that if the Trump administration suspends action, the group would only receive funds allocated by Congress.
In a simple order, the court said the challenger “doesn't refute” the Trump administration's claim that “it's unlikely to recover the grant once they're paid.” In contrast, the order said, “The government argues that while the grant is suspended, “respondents are persuasive that they will not suffer irreparable harm.” The court said it relied on statements by challengers.
In dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, rebutted the “requisites will cause serious harm to the grantees – the fact that the government is barely fighting.”
She added: “What's worse, the government doesn't even appoint them to defend the legality of their actions.”
In her opposition, Judge Elena Kagan wrote that teacher training efforts will be harmed by court cases.
“The state has consistently expressed that the loss of these grants is forcing them to cut down on teacher training programs,” she writes.
When the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene, proxy Attorney General Sarah M. Harris wrote in an emergency application that the judge's order was one of many lower court decisions that blocked government initiatives.
“The purpose is clear: to get the executive branch off track and prevent administrative agencies from changing the massive direction of a multi-billion dollar government that they believe is against U.S. interests and financial health,” she writes.
She added: “Only this court can straighten the ship, and it's time to do so.”
In response, the state said the judge should decide one dispute at a time.
The brief added that the cancellation of the grants was not accompanied by inferences specific to each grant. The letters on the boilerplate stated that “did not explain how the grant-funded program was involved in either of the alleged disqualification.”
