“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brent Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, nominated by Donald Trump, cast deciding votes in a 5-4 ruling that allowed the Trump Administration to terminate $65 million in teacher training grants as the litigation continues. The April 2025 decision was in Department of Education v California.
What happened in this case?
In February 2025, the Department of Education began to notify states that it was terminating grant awards under programs approved by Congress that provide for recruitment and training of teachers in underserved areas. Some received letters claiming the termination was because the programs involved “DEI initiatives.” Eight states sued in early March in the District of Massachusetts, contending that the terminations were arbitrary and capricious and thus illegal.
The district court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) that restored the grants while the litigation proceeded. Both it and the First Circuit court of appeals rejected motions by the government to stay the TRO. The Trump administration then sought an emergency stay from the Supreme Court.
How did the Supreme Court decide and why was the majority decision dangerous?
The Court issued an unsigned 5-4 decision granting the stay and allowing the Trump administration to cancel the grants, totaling approximately $65 million, as the litigation goes forward. The majority consisted of Trump justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, plus Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan pointed out that there was no proper justification for emergency relief in this matter, particularly since, contrary to the majority’s assertion, the states have “consistently represented” that the loss of the grants has “already forced them” to “curtail teacher training programs.” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, similarly noted that the majority’s action would cause “significant harm,” and that the government “does not even deign to defend the lawfulness of its actions.” For these and other reasons, she explained, the majority’s ruling was “unprincipled” and “unwarranted.”
The decision made possible by Trump justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett will clearly harm students and teachers in the eight states affected. In addition, it sets a dangerous precedent for interfering on an emergency basis with lower court orders that seek to mitigate the harm done by Trump administration edicts on education, social welfare, and other issues. The case also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.