Background of the Case

In a legal battle involving the Department of Education, eight states, spearheaded by California, have petitioned the Supreme Court to maintain a ruling from a federal court in Massachusetts that mandates the restoration of over $65 million in cancelled teacher recruitment grants. These grants, aimed at addressing teacher shortages, were terminated by the Department of Education in February due to concerns over the inclusion of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in the programs.

Arguments Presented

In a 40-page legal document filed on a recent Friday, the states assert that the Supreme Court does not need to intervene, stating that the district court’s actions were measured. The states argue that “the district court acted responsibly — entering a narrow and time-limited restraining order to preserve the status quo while moving rapidly to adjudicate” the situation regarding a preliminary injunction.

The Department of Education had previously discontinued 104 out of 109 grants associated with the program, citing “objectionable” content linked to DEI policies.

Judicial Actions So Far

U.S. District Judge Myong Joun issued a temporary injunction on March 10, ordering the restoration of the grants in the eight states involved in the lawsuit, while also restraining the department from applying further terminations within those states. A subsequent move by the federal appeals court in Boston denied the department’s request for a stay on Judge Joun’s order, leading to Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris bringing the matter to the Supreme Court.

State Responses and Federal Concerns

The petition from the states counters the federal government’s stance that allowing the grants to be reinstated may prompt rapid withdrawals of funds by grantees, thus complicating any future recovery efforts if the order is overturned. The states responded that, despite 18 days having passed since the injunction, there have been no evident attempts to withdraw funds, nor has the department demonstrated that it could not halt such actions or reclaim the disbursed amounts.

The states also posited that with the relatively low stakes of this particular case, the federal government’s apprehensions are more likely aligned with broader legal battles across the country concerning recent executive actions.