The Supreme Court on Friday allowed President Donald Trump to temporarily freeze millions of dollars in grants to states for addressing teacher shortages, the administration’s first win at the high court since reclaiming power in January.
The decision was 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts and the three liberals dissenting.
Trump attempted to cancel the grants based on allegations that the money was being used for programs that take part in diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives – a favorite, if ill-defined, target for the administration. In cancelling 104 of 109 grants, the administration sent a form letter than did not provide specifics about which DEI programs, specifically, it believed the awardees were engaged in.
The two grant programs, Supporting Effective Educator Development and Teacher Quality Partnership, are used to recruit and train teachers to work in traditionally underserved communities.
Eight blue states that rely on the funding – including California, Illinois and New York – sued and a federal judge in Boston issued an order temporarily blocking the administration from freezing the funding while he considered the case. An appeals court declined to overturn that order and the administration appealed to the Supreme Court on its emergency docket last week.
The administration focused its appeal on an argument it has been sounding for weeks to the public as well as for the justices: That a single district court judge shouldn’t be able to dictate national policy – even in the short term. Previous presidents have made similar arguments when faced with adverse rulings, though the Trump administration has been doing so in case after case rapidly filed at the Supreme Court.
“This case exemplifies a flood of recent suits that raise the question: ‘Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever)’ millions in taxpayer dollars?” acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris, the administration’s top appellate attorney, told the Supreme Court in the government’s appeal.
The states argued in their own briefing that the district court is considering the case on expedited basis and would likely issue a new order.
The justices are considered several emergency appeals from the second Trump administration touching on similar themes. Three of those appeals deal with the president’s efforts to end birthright citizenship and the administration is specifically asking the court to limit the scope of nationwide injunction that bars it from doing so. Another deals with the president’s attempt to invoke a wartime authority, the Alien Enemies Act, to rapidly deport alleged members of a Venezuelan gang.
And the court has already resolved two emergency appeals from the Trump administration. In one, the court allowed the head of an independent agency that investigates whistleblower claims to remain on the job temporarily while his case continued. A lower court ultimately ruled that Hampton Dellinger could be removed and he declined to appeal. In another case, the court denied the Trump administration’s effort to fight a judge-imposed deadline to spend billions of dollars in foreign aid. Litigation in that case is ongoing.
This story has been updated with additional development.
Source: edition.cnn.com
