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.
The states have made clear “that they have the financial wherewithal to keep their programs running,” the court reasoned in its unsigned opinion. But, the court said, the Trump administration made a compelling case that it would not be able to recover any funds spent while the lower court’s order remained in place.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson all dissented, and either wrote or joined opinions explaining their position. Roberts said he would have denied the stay but didn’t to explain his reasoning.
That meant the majority was made up of five conservatives – Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
“This is unquestionably a win for the Trump administration, but on remarkably narrow and modest terms,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center.
“It leaves open the possibility that the plaintiffs are going to win not just this case, but a bunch of other challenges to the government’s cancellation of grants, while freezing the order in this specific case. And even that was a bridge too far for Chief Justice Roberts and the three Democratic appointees,” Vladeck added. “It’s a victory for the government, but a short-lived one that may soon be overtaken by far more significant losses in the other pending cases in which Trump has asked the justices to intervene.”
Jackson argued that the court was wrong to brush off the harms to the states, citing schools in Boston that have fired several full-time employees and the College of New Jersey canceling the remainder of its teacher-residency program.
“It boggles the mind to equate the devastation wrought from such abrupt funding withdrawals with the mere risk that some grantees might seek to draw down previously promised funds that the Department wants to yank away from them,” Jackson wrote.
Debate over temporary restraining orders
It’s unclear how much practical effect Friday’s Supreme Court order will have given that much of the money in the dispute may have already been dispersed.
But the court’s majority briefly addressed a notable procedural aspect of the case – in that the high court had been asked to review a temporary restraining order – a type of emergency, short-fuse order that is usually not appealable – sending a signal that could have repercussions in other cases challenging a variety of Trump policies.
The Supreme Court suggested this particular TRO – which was set to expire on Monday – was closer in kind to a preliminary injunction, a more fulsome order that is subject to appeal. That language could encourage the administration to appeal more of the TROs currently curtailing Trump’s agenda.
Related article‘Only this Court’: How Trump is begging the Supreme Court to approve his agenda
Jackson the knocked court for weighing in on the TRO now, as the the trial court judge in the case is likely to issue a preliminary injunction soon, which could restart the appeal process.
“It does so even though the TRO preserves the pretermination status quo and causes zero concrete harm to the government,” Jackson wrote.
Kagan wrote in a brief dissent that the court was wrongly breaking new ground on its emergency docket by blessing the appeal of a temporary restraining order. She said a lack of legal briefing from the government in defense of the cancelled grants was especially concerning.
“The risk of error increases when this court decides cases – as here – with barebones briefing, no argument, and scarce time for reflection,” she wrote. “Rather than make new law on our emergency docket, we should have allowed the dispute to proceed in the ordinary way.”
Embracing Trump argument on court authority
The opinion of the court’s majority also zeroed in and embraced the Trump administration’s argument that the trial court judge lacked the authority to issue the order.
The high court cited an exemption in the Administrative Procedure Act – the law the states used to challenge the grant freeze – that limits when courts can issue orders in cases that require the government to pay out contracts. There are other cases at lower courts dealing with similar issues.
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 that 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.
