Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, SUPREME COURT NEWS—High Court stays TRO that was enjoining Trump administration from terminating education-related grants, (Apr 7, 2025)

By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

“It is beyond puzzling that a majority of Justices conceive of the Government’s application as an emergency,” stated Justice Jackson in dissent.

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in to stay a district court’s temporary restraining order that was enjoining the Trump administration from terminating a slew of education-related grants, including those that assisted with the recruitment and training of teachers. Congress previously had. due to concerns about a shortage of qualified teachers and principals in underserved areas, directed the Secretary of Education to earmark certain funds to provide for, among other things, the recruitment and training of teacher and others in these areas. As a result, the Secretary, as relevant here, awarded 109 grants for Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) and Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED) programs.

Grant terminations. After President Trump’s inauguration, however, 104 of those programs received boilerplate letters from the DOE purporting to terminate their grants. According to the letters, each terminated grant was inconsistent with DOE priorities because it “provides funding for programs that promote or take part in [diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)] initiatives or other initiatives that unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or another protected characteristic; that violate either the letter or purpose of Federal civil rights law; that conflict with the Department's policy of prioritizing merit, fairness, and excellence in education; that are not free from fraud, abuse, or duplication; or that otherwise fail to serve the best interests of the United States.”

TRO, not stayed by First Circuit. After eight states within which numerous grant recipients operate sued the DOE (Case No. 1:25-cv-10548), a Massachusetts district court issued a temporary restraining order requiring the Department to, among other things, restore the status quo as it stood prior to the purported terminations and, in addition to continuing to pay obligations as they accrue, also to pay out past-due grant obligations. The DOE appealed the TRO and sought a stay pending appeal. The First Circuit found the DOE failed to properly explain why the programs were being terminated and denied DOE’s motion to stay the TRO pending appeal.

SCOTUS grants application. Next, the DOE applied to the U.S. Supreme Court to vacate the district court’s order. The application was presented to Justice Jackson, who referred it to the Court. In a per curiam decision, the Court, construing the application as seeking a stay pending appeal, granted the application. The March 10, 2025, order and later extension by the district court, case No. 1:25– cv–10548, the Court determined, “is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought.” If certiorari is denied, the decision adds, the stay shall terminate automatically, and if it is granted, the stay “shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.”

The Court reasoned that, “[a]lthough the Courts of Appeals generally lack appellate jurisdiction over appeals from TROs, several factors counsel in favor of construing the District Court’s order as an appealable preliminary injunction.” In particular, the Court explained that “respondents have not refuted the Government’s representation that it is unlikely to recover the grant funds once they are disbursed.” On the other hand, the Court explains, the Trump administration “compelling argues that respondents would not suffer irreparable harm while the TRO is stayed.”

Dissent Justices. The Chief Justice stated that he would deny the application; meanwhile, Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson each penned separate dissents.

In her 17-page dissent, Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Sotomayor, issued a strong rebuke regarding the decision:

• With the TRO on its last legs, a majority of this Court has chosen to dive into this dispute today, allowing the Department to implement immediately its new summary grant-termination policy. It does so even though the TRO preserves the pretermination status quo and causes zero concrete harm to the Government. By contrast, reinstating the challenged grant-termination policy will inflict significant harm on grantees—a fact that the Government barely contests. Worse still, the Government does not even deign to defend the lawfulness of its actions. Instead, it asks us to superintend the lower courts’ real-time decisions about ancillary threshold and remedial questions, which we could easily wait to address in the ordinary course.

• It is beyond puzzling that a majority of Justices conceive of the Government’s application as an emergency. It is like-wise baffling that anyone is persuaded that the equities favor the Government when the Government does not even argue that the lower courts erred in concluding that it likely behaved unlawfully. This application should have been denied for numerous obvious and independent reasons, and the Court does itself—and the legal process—no favors in deciding to grant it.

The First Circuit docket is No. 25-1244; the Supreme Court docket is No. 24A910.

News: SupremeCourtNews AgencyNews LitigationNewsTrends Procedure PublicEmployees GovernmentContracts WhiteHouseNews DOGE FedTracker LaborEmployment