States Accuse Education Dept Grant Order Defiance

• A coalition of 15 states is seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the U.S. Education Department from canceling school mental health grants.
• This legal action follows a temporary restraining order issued in July by Judge Kymberly Evanson, blocking previous attempts to cut funding.
• The states argue the department is defying a prior court order that mandated grant decisions be based on performance data, not political preferences.
• The Education Department claims it has no final plan for termination and asserts that challenges should be heard exclusively in the Court of Federal Claims.
• States contend that the ongoing uncertainty is already harming schools by impacting mental health staffing and service availability as the academic year begins.

The states contend that the department's actions, even with a temporary restraining order in place, are already causing significant disruption to essential mental health services in public schools.

A coalition of 15 states has initiated legal action, requesting a Washington state federal judge to issue a preliminary injunction aimed at preventing the U.S. Education Department from canceling millions in school mental health grants. This latest move comes after a temporary restraining order was granted in July, temporarily blocking the department's efforts to cut funding for these critical programs.

During a recent hearing for the plaintiffs' motion, U.S. District Judge Kymberly Evanson scrutinized the Education Department's assertion that the only proper venue for grantees to contest terminations is the Court of Federal Claims, rather than lower courts. The judge also questioned the department's argument that it has not yet formulated a "clear, concrete" plan regarding the terminations, suggesting that agency action must precede any legal challenge. The department's attorney, Brian Kipnis, maintained that the court does not oversee the Education Department's operations, emphasizing the lack of a final agency decision.

Kipnis firmly stated that the department has not finalized any agency action nor outlined a definitive plan for how grant terminations would be decided. He characterized the department's current position as merely a "concept, an intent, a discussion" about potential changes, rather than a concrete decision. The department had previously sought clarification from Judge Evanson in June regarding her earlier order, specifically questioning whether terminating a grant would violate the existing injunction, arguing that termination is governed by a separate provision than non-continuation.

The current legal dispute stems from an initial lawsuit filed by the coalition of states last year, following the Education Department's move to discontinue approximately $1 billion in school mental health grants. In December, Judge Evanson intervened, blocking the department's action and ordering the reinstatement of the grants. Her injunction mandated that the department reconsider each grant application using appropriate regulatory procedures and base its decisions on actual performance data, rather than political preferences, specifically citing adherence to the Trump administration’s views on diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Despite this prior ruling, the department subsequently announced its renewed intent to terminate the grants. This prompted the department to ask Judge Evanson for further clarification on her court order. In response to the department's continued efforts to cut funding, the coalition of states filed a new lawsuit, which led to the temporary restraining order issued in July, setting the stage for the current preliminary injunction hearing.

At the heart of the ongoing legal battle are conflicting claims regarding the Education Department's actions and the scope of judicial oversight. The department, through its attorney Brian Kipnis, contended that it had not yet developed a final plan for grant terminations, suggesting that any challenge was premature. Kipnis also argued that the department had only sought clarification from the court on whether a termination would breach the existing injunction, implying no definitive action had been taken.

However, attorneys for the plaintiff states strongly disagreed with this characterization. Ellen Range, representing the plaintiffs, cited notices sent to grantees about the cessation of funds for the upcoming year, along with grant guidance published on the department’s own webpage, as evidence of a clear intent and plan to terminate. Kipnis countered that the department's webpage guidance did not legally "obligate" it to follow those directives when formulating a termination plan. Jennifer Chung, an attorney with the Washington State Attorney General’s Office, further asserted that the department’s claim that challenges could only be heard in the Court of Federal Claims ignored both the General Education Provisions Act and federal civil rights law, arguing that terminating grants without proper judicial review would constitute an unlawful act.

The states contend that the department's actions, even with a temporary restraining order in place, are already causing significant disruption to essential mental health services in public schools. Jennifer Chung highlighted the immediate and tangible harm, noting that schools are either already in session or commencing soon, and require clarity on available funding for the full academic year.

This uncertainty directly impacts critical operational decisions, including the hiring of mental health staff and the recruitment of graduate student interns. Ultimately, the lack of stable funding jeopardizes the availability of vital mental health services for students in public schools across the plaintiff states, underscoring the urgent need for a resolution to the federal grant termination challenge.

This case provides critical insight into the ongoing legal battles over federal agency discretion in grant termination and the limits of judicial oversight. Lawyers and compliance officers advising entities reliant on federal grants should track the outcome for implications on funding stability, procedural requirements for grant changes, and the enforceability of court orders against executive departments.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service