At last check, we were north of 160 federal lawsuits filed against Trump administration executive actions, and while the district courts have been furiously handing out temporary restraining orders (TROs) and injunctions, a number of the cases have been snaking their way up through the appellate courts to the Supreme Court. Mind you, these are largely procedural rulings rather than decisions on the merits. There’s still a long way to go before all the dust settles.
But the Trump administration scored a win before the Supreme Court Friday afternoon as the high court issued a 5-4 decision granting the administration’s request for a stay of a district court TRO, which enjoined the administration from terminating various education-related grants and required it to pay out past-due grant obligations and continue paying grant obligations as they accrue.
BREAKING: A 5-4 Supreme Court *grants* the Trump administration’s emergency request to stay a Massachusetts court order requiring it to reinstate $250 million in Department of Education teacher training grants to eight states.
Roberts & liberals dissenthttps://t.co/TXun2QPChc pic.twitter.com/9BUP5Lou59— Katie Buehler (@bykatiebuehler) April 4, 2025
RELATED: Judge Orders Trump to Return Deported Man Sent to El Salvadoran Prison, Sets Up a Massive Showdown
That’s Another Win: 4th Circuit Rules on Trump Admin’s Request for Stay in USAID/DOGE Case
Here’s a bit more background:
A divided Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration by allowing officials to block $65 million in teacher development grants frozen over concerns they were promoting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) practices.
The 5-4 emergency ruling, for now, lifts a lower order that allowed the Education Department to resume the grants in eight Democratic-led states that are suing.
…
In February, the administration began canceling disbursements under two federal education grants aimed at developing educators and combatting teacher shortages: the Teacher Quality Partnership Program and the Supporting Effective Educator Development Program.
Officials have cast the freezes as part of the administration’s broader crackdown on DEI, and it also comes as Trump and Education Secretary Linda McMahon look to effectively gut the department.
As noted above, this was a 5-4 decision. It is per curiam, so there’s no designated author of the majority decision, but Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court’s three liberal justices in dissent.
The full decision may be viewed here, but here are the key factors in the majority’s ruling:
[A]s we have recognized, the APA’s limited waiver of immunity does not extend to orders “to enforce a contractual obligation to pay money” along the lines of what the District Court ordered here. Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U. S. 204, 212 (2002). Instead, the Tucker Act grants the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over suits based on “any express or implied contract with the United States.” 28 U. S. C. §1491(a)(1).
As for the remaining stay factors, respondents have not refuted the Government’s representation that it is unlikely to recover the grant funds once they are disbursed. No grantee “promised to return withdrawn funds should its grant termination be reinstated,” and the District Court declined to impose bond. App. to Application To Vacate Order 15a, 17a. By contrast, the Government compellingly argues that respondents would not suffer irreparable harm while the TRO is stayed. Respondents have represented in this litigation that they have the financial wherewithal to keep their programs running. So, if respondents ultimately prevail, they can recover any wrongfully withheld funds through suit in an appropriate forum. And if respondents instead decline to keep the programs operating, then any ensuing irreparable harm would be of their own making. “Such self-imposed costs are not properly the subject of inquiry on a motion for stay.” Cuomo v. NRC, 772 F. 2d 972, 977 (CADC 1985) (per curiam).
Justice Elena Kagan filed a separate written dissent, as did Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson (with whom Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined). As to Roberts, there is simply a note following the majority’s decision that states: ” THE CHIEF JUSTICE would deny the application.” No explanation as to why he would.
As mentioned above, this is a procedural ruling. It simply stays the district court’s order pending disposition of the administration’s appeal with the First Circuit Court of Appeals (and possibly an appeal on the merits back to the Supreme Court).
Editor’s Note: Radical leftist judges are doing everything they can to hamstring President Trump’s agenda to make America great again.
Help us hold these corrupt judges accountable for their unconstitutional rulings. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
