A federal judge agreed with the Trump administration that she can鈥檛 order the restoration of millions of dollars in funding for teacher-training grants the administration prematurely cut earlier this year. But, the judge concluded, she retains the ability to decide if the administration broke the law in terminating them.
U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley, based in Massachusetts, that she would hear the case from eight states challenging the U.S. Department of Education鈥檚 termination of millions of dollars in grant funding that supported teacher-training programs, but agreed the restoration of funding belonged in the hands of a different federal court.
It鈥檚 the latest twist in a monthslong legal battle over the cancellation of these grants, which happened in February in the first month of the new Trump administration. A judge temporarily restored them before the U.S. Supreme Court intervened and said the administration could move forward with the grant terminations while the underlying legal battle played out. Kelley鈥檚 Thursday ruling is the latest development in that lawsuit.
Kelley鈥檚 ruling is also another example of the fine line courts are walking as President Donald Trump鈥檚 administration draws dozens of lawsuits challenging the president鈥檚 efforts to cut off funding to programs he doesn鈥檛 support. Plaintiffs in the numerous suits challenging the sudden termination of federal funding have gone to the courts seeking the restoration of grant awards. But they have seen their options for relief narrow, after a Supreme Court decision effectively pushed such complaints outside of the main federal court system to a different federal court, the Court of Federal Claims, that offers more limited relief.
Kelley, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, concluded that the question of whether to restore the individual canceled teacher-training grants鈥攚hich fell under two congressionally authorized programs鈥攍ies in the federal claims court. But she contended in her ruling that she retains the ability to rule on the legality of the Trump administration鈥檚 terminations.
鈥淲hen all is said and done, grants to fund certain educational programs were terminated. Today鈥檚 holding indicates this court lacks any power to bring these grants back. However, plaintiffs are not without remedy,鈥� she wrote , going on to say that if she found the government鈥檚 actions unlawful, 鈥渢he grantees in plaintiff states can file suit in the Court of Federal Claims to request their money damages under the contract.鈥�
The Court of Federal Claims provides less sweeping relief for plaintiffs, and grantees who are successful can only recoup monetary damages rather than have contracts and grants fully reinstated. It鈥檚 a more difficult road for plaintiffs to go down, with a heavier burden of proof for lesser reward, experts have said.
And that court has been a linchpin of the Trump administration鈥檚 legal arguments as it defends itself against lawsuits from school districts, universities, states, and others over funding terminations.
As district court judges have sided with plaintiffs and ordered the Education Department to restore funds, the Trump administration has pursued appeals to higher courts and the Supreme Court, which have more frequently sided with the president.
At the heart of this case are more than 40 teacher-training programs in the eight plaintiff states, with grant awards totaling more than $250 million. The Education Department cited an emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion when it ended the grants in February.
The grant awards have been tied up in the courts for months after appeals and the Supreme Court鈥檚 intervention. Another district court judge originally halted the department鈥檚 termination of the grants through a temporary order. But the Trump administration took the issue to an appeals court and then the Supreme Court, which ultimately sided with the president. The temporary block was lifted, and the Trump administration moved to have the case transferred to federal claims court.
The eight states amended their initial complaint, maintaining that there had been regulatory and constitutional violations that the district court could rule on.
The eight states, all with Democratic attorneys general, are California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Wisconsin.
Kelley was swayed, arguing that the new assertions in the updated complaint warrant her court鈥檚 deliberation.
鈥淎s it turns out, this case extends well beyond that single dispute. Specifically, this case requires this court to identify, untangle, and apply precedent. Faced with several Supreme Court 鈥� opinions and conflicting persuasive authority, this court grapples with a contested issue: does this case belong in this court or the Court of Federal Claims?鈥� she wrote. 鈥�... This court holds it belongs in both.鈥�
