Washington – The Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration on Friday to finish the subsidies of the Department of Education for Teacher Training that officials considered that they violate their new policy that opposes the efforts of diversity, equity and inclusion.
Decision 5-4 blocks the decision of a Massachusetts headquarters who said the administration had not followed the right legal process to finish subsidies. Around $ 65 million in subsidies payments are pending.
The decision is the first victory for President Donald Trump in the Supreme Court in his second term.
Five of the Court’s conservatives were a majority, while the president of the Supreme Court John Roberts joined the three liberals in dissent.
The unpleasant decision said that the judge of the District Court had no authority to order the funds to be paid under a federal law called Administrative Procedure Law.
The administration “argues convincingly” that the entities that receive the funds will not suffer irreparable damage as a result of the funds retain, the decision said.
In a dissident opinion, Liberal Judge Elena Kagan played that conclusion, saying that the beneficiaries of the subsidy had said that they would be forced to cancel some of their programs.
“Nowhere in its documents the government defends the legality of canceling the education subsidies in question here,” he added.
“It is more than disconcerting than most judges conceive the government’s request as an emergency,” said Liberal Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson in a separate opinion.
Follow the live policy coverage here
The 104 subsidies in question had been granted under two different programs, the teacher’s quality association and another called Effective Educators.
The Department of Education in February found that subsidies violated Trump’s executive order that the Administration eliminates diversity, equity and inclusion, or the DEI programs, which are traditionally aimed in part to ensure that people from historically marginalized groups can obtain equal opportunities to advance their careers.
Administration officials said that the funded programs “promote or participate in initiatives or other initiatives that illegally discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin or other protected characteristic.”
In the judicial documents, the Attorney General Sarah Harris said that many of the programs contained “material of objectable.”
Eight states filed a lawsuit in March, including California, Massachusetts and New York, on behalf of entities that receive subsidies, such as non -profit universities and organizations, saying that the decision to terminate the awards violated a federal law called Administrative Procedure Law.
The United States District Judge, Myong Joun, issued a temporary restriction order that blocks the movement of the administration, saying that officials had not properly explained their reasoning.
The First Court of Appeals of the United States Circuit based in Boston refused to block the Joun’s ruling, noting that the Department of Education had sent the same boiler letter to all the winners of the subsidy that announced the termination of funds. The letters did not contain specific information on why it was considered that any particular program violated the anti-Dei policy, the Court of Appeals said.
The case only involves subsidies issued to entities in the states they demanded. In total, the Department of Education canceled around $ 600 million in subsidies for teacher training.
Last month, Trump signed an executive order that seeks to dismantle the Department of Education. However, eliminating the department would require the approval of Congress.
In two previous emergency applications submitted by the Trump Administration, the Supreme Court did not grant its requests.
In one, the Court rejected the administration’s offer to avoid paying contractors immediately by the United States Agency for International Development whose financing was reduced.
In the other, the Court avoided a decision on whether Trump could fire a federal government guard dog, although as a result of a decision of the lower court, the administration finally prevailed.
