The Trump administration was handed a win by the U.S. Supreme Court Friday, when it granted the administration’s move to cut millions of dollars in teacher-training.
According to the Associated Press, the move was part of the administration’s push to rid federal agencies of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, and a lawsuit is currently underway against it.
Chief Justice John Roberts dissented and sided with three liberal justices in a 5-4 vote.
A federal judge in Boston temporarily halted cuts to over 100 programs, citing their impact on training initiatives designed to address the nationwide teacher shortage. The federal appeals court in Boston later rejected the administration’s request to reinstate these cuts.
The emergency appeal is one of several cases before the high court where the Justice Department contends that lower-court judges have wrongly hindered President Donald Trump’s agenda.
Friday’s decision marks the first time the Supreme Court has granted the administration what it wanted, according to the AP.
U.S. District Judge Myong Joun granted a temporary restraining order requested by eight Democratic-led states, which claimed the cuts were likely motivated by the Trump administration’s attempts to dismantle DEO programs.
Trump further signed an executive order that called for the dismantling of the Department of Education, which has already begun overhauling its work and cutting contracts its finds “woke.”
The Teacher Quality Partnership and Supporting Effective Educator Development programs, which are at the center of the debate, allocate over $600 million in grants for teacher preparation initiatives. These grants often focus on critical areas like math, science, and special education. Data indicates that these programs have boosted teacher retention rates.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority said the states can keep programs running with their own money but conceded in an unsigned opinion that the administration would be unlikely to get any money back if the lawsuit is won.
Justice Elena Kagan said that there was no reason for the court’s emergency intervention.
“Nowhere in its papers does the Government defend the legality of canceling the education grants at issue here,” Kagan wrote.
