Supreme Court Allows Trump Admin to Freeze Education Grants Over DEI Concerns

The admin filed a brief telling the justices that a federal judge in Massachusetts had exceeded his authority by interfering in ‘a contract dispute.’

The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on April 3, 2025. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

The Supreme Court has granted President Donald Trump’s request to halt the reinstatement of millions of dollars in Department of Education grants that the government targeted over concerns about diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.

Chief Justice John Roberts would have denied the administration’s request for relief, according to a court document. Justice Elena Kagan issued a dissent, as did Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, whose dissent was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

The Supreme Court’s order blocks another order from a federal judge in Massachusetts and keeps it on hold pending the outcome of an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The court indicated it may grant certiorari, or take up the case for more thorough consideration of the legal arguments involved.

Trump’s request was on an emergency basis and alleged that the order from U.S. District Judge Myong Joun exceeded his authority. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris said Joun was interfering with what she described as “essentially a contract dispute that belongs in the Court of Federal Claims, not a district court.”

In its unsigned opinion, the Supreme Court seemed concerned that the federal government would face irreparable harm if it were forced to disburse the grants. It said the plaintiffs in the case, which included eight states, had “not refuted the Government’s representation that it is unlikely to recover the grant funds once they are disbursed.”

The opinion added that the plaintiffs “have represented in this litigation that they have the financial wherewithal to keep their programs running.”

“So, if respondents ultimately prevail, they can recover any wrongfully withheld funds through suit in an appropriate forum,” the opinion stated.

Kagan said in her dissent that “the Court’s reasoning is at the least under-developed, and very possibly wrong.” She added that “nothing about this case demanded our immediate intervention.”

Jackson similarly suggested the court acted too quickly. “It is beyond puzzling that a majority of Justices conceive of the Government’s application as an emergency,” she said.

Part of her dissent took issue with the court assuming jurisdiction over the order, which was issued as a temporary restraining order (TRO). Those are not appealable, she said.

Although the unsigned opinion acknowledged that appellate courts generally lack jurisdiction over TROs, it said Joun’s order “carries many of the hallmarks of a preliminary injunction” and indicated it should be construed as that type of order rather than a TRO.

Attorney General Pam Bondi responded to the Supreme Court’s decision by stating on social media platform X that the ruling “vindicates what the Department of Justice has been arguing for months: local district judges do not have the jurisdiction to seize control of taxpayer dollars, force the government to pay out billions, or unilaterally halt President Trump’s policy agenda.”

The case—Department of Education v. California—arose when eight states sued the administration over its decision to terminate the grants, which they said were authorized to address teacher shortages and improve teacher quality, especially in low-income communities.

Since entering his second term, Trump has issued multiple executive orders targeting DEI.

One titled “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling” stated that the administration would “enforce the law to ensure that recipients of Federal funds providing K-12 education comply with all applicable laws prohibiting discrimination in various contexts and protecting parental rights, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

Harris stated in her briefing that in February, the Department of Education “canceled a host of discretionary grants after individually reviewing them and determining that they were inconsistent with the new Administration’s policies and priorities.”