U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court Ruling Redirects Key Cases to Court of Federal Claims
April 7, 2025, 11:42 am CDT
A recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on education grants may shift similar lawsuits to the Court of Federal Claims, experts suggest. (Image from Shutterstock)
On April 4, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court reached a decision regarding the Trump administration’s freeze on $65 million in education-related grants. The ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications, potentially steering numerous lawsuits about spending decisions made during the previous administration to the Court of Federal Claims, as indicated by legal experts.
The 5-4 ruling concluded that the government likely has a strong case to argue that a lower court lacked the authority to mandate the payment of funds under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This law permits some exceptions to government immunity, but it does not extend to court orders demanding monetary compensation, according to the Supreme Court.
The directive from the court indicates that such disputes should instead be directed to the Court of Federal Claims, a venue that is often unfamiliar to the general public but may soon gain significant importance in legal proceedings involving federal funding issues.
Professor Josh Blackman from South Texas College of Law underscored the potential impact of this ruling, stating, “This decision could rapidly eliminate many other spending-related cases, shifting them towards the Court of Federal Claims.” He added that this court will likely become a central venue for litigation concerning federal finances.
The Supreme Court’s decision also stayed a temporary restraining order issued by U.S. District Judge Myong J. Joun of Massachusetts on March 10. Judge Joun’s order had mandated that the government make payments on outstanding grant commitments while the lawsuit progressed, a move he justified by arguing the challengers had a strong likelihood of succeeding in their claims that the administration’s actions were arbitrary and capricious under the APA.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court disagreed with Judge Joun’s assessment, allowing the grant freeze to remain in effect while judicial proceedings continue. Chief Justice John Roberts expressed dissent but did not submit a separate opinion, while the Supreme Court’s three liberal justices also voiced their disagreement.
The grants were previously halted due to controversies surrounding initiatives focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion. The states participating in the lawsuit include California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin.
Justice Elena Kagan noted in her dissent that according to traditional interpretations of the APA, cases of this nature generally fall under the jurisdiction of federal district courts, even when financial recompense is involved. “The court’s reasoning is at the least underdeveloped and very possibly wrong,” Kagan remarked.
Additionally, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, accompanied by Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her dissent, criticized the majority for deeming the case an emergency, asserting that the situation did not warrant such classification.
This significant ruling is formally titled Department of Education v. California and marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing legal discourse surrounding federal education funding.
