The Department of Education asked the Supreme Court to vacate a temporary restraining order issued by a district court judge that required the Department to reinstate two grant programs for teachers.
The case, United States Department of Education v. State of California, arose when the Department notified grant recipients in the Teacher Quality Partnership program and the Supporting Effective Educator Development program that funding would be halted. The Department cited various reasons in its form letter to recipients, but they all came down to the Administration's crack-down on DEI initiatives.
Eight states sued, arguing that the Department's move was arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court issued a TRO, and the First Circuit declined to stay it.
On the (likelihood of success on the) merits, the First Circuit held that the Administration failed adequately to explain its decision to halt funding to these programs, which are created by Congress and provided for in law.
In moving to vacate and seeking an administrative stay at the Supreme Court, the government contends that the district court overreached in issuing a nationwide TRO, and that it lacked jurisdiction to hear a contract dispute. (Under the Tucker Act, federal government contract disputes go to the Court of Claims. But the plaintiffs pleaded the case as an APA violation, not a contract dispute, and the lower courts agreed. This defense–that challenges to the Administration's funding halts are contract disputes that belong in the Court of Claims–is a recurring and familiar government argument in cases challenging the Administration's funding halts.)
The plaintiffs' response is due on Friday.