WASHINGTON, DC — The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday granted an emergency request from the Department of Justice to stay a lower court ruling that blocked the federal government from terminating over 100 education-related grants, handing a legal win to the Biden administration and drawing sharp dissents from liberal justices.
Key Points
- Supreme Court stayed a district court order blocking termination of education grants
- Attorney General Pamela Bondi called the ruling a “significant victory” for President Trump and the rule of law
- Liberal justices Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor issued strong dissents criticizing the decision
The case, Department of Education v. California, centers on the Biden administration’s decision to terminate funding under the Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) and Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED) programs, citing concerns over the legality of some initiatives related to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
In its unsigned opinion, the Court agreed with the federal government that the district court’s temporary restraining order had the practical effect of a preliminary injunction, allowing the education department to proceed with cutting off funds while appeals continue.
“Today marks a significant victory for President Trump and the rule of law,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi in a statement, referring to the continued pursuit of executive authority. “This Supreme Court ruling vindicates what the Department of Justice has been arguing for months.”
The decision drew dissent from Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Jackson criticized the majority for intervening in what she called a non-emergency case, warning that the ruling enabled “significant harm” to state education programs and bypassed proper legal review.
The grants, originally awarded to public schools and universities nationwide, were terminated in February by the Department of Education under an internal directive aimed at eliminating federally funded initiatives deemed inconsistent with department priorities.
The Supreme Court’s stay will remain in effect while the case proceeds through the First Circuit Court of Appeals and potentially returns to the high court if certiorari is granted.
