The Supreme Court allows Trump to end subsidies in teacher training

Washington – The Supreme Court has enabled the Trump administration to end the education department’s subsidies for teacher training that officials have deemed violating their new policy between the efforts of diversity, equity and inclusion.

Decision 5-4 blocks a decision of the judge based in the Massachusetts that the administration had not followed the correct legal process in the end of the grants. About $ 65 million in grant payments are underway.

The decision is the first victory for President Donald Trump at the Supreme Court during his second term.

Five of the conservatives of the court were in the majority, while chief judge John Roberts joined the three liberals of dissent.

The unsigned decision indicates that the district court judge did not have the power to order that the funds were paid under federal law called the Act on administrative procedure.

The administration “supports” convincingly “that the entities receiving the funds will not undergo irreparable damage due to the end of the funds, said the decision.

In a dissident opinion, the liberal judge Elena Kagan challenged this conclusion, claiming that the subsidy recipients had declared that they would be forced to cancel some of their programs.

“Nowhere in its articles, the government defends the legality of canceling the education subsidies in question here,” she added.

“It is more than confusing that a majority of judges conceive of the government’s request as an emergency,” said Liberal judge Ketanji Brown Jackson in a separate opinion.

Follow the political coverage live here

The 104 subsidies in question had been granted within the framework of two different programs, the quality partnership of teachers and another called to support an effective educational development.

The Ministry of Education in February found that the subsidies had violated Trump’s decree that the administration eliminates diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, programs that traditionally aim to ensure that people from historically marginalized groups can obtain equal chances to advance their career.

Administration officials said that the programs financed “promoted or participated in Dei initiatives or other initiatives that illegally discriminate against the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or other protected characteristic”.

In court documents, the acting general solicitor Sarah Harris said that many programs contained “reprehensible materials”.

A legal action was filed in March by eight states, including California, Massachusetts and New York – on behalf of the entities that receive subsidies, such as universities and non -profit organizations – affirming that the decision to cancel prices violated a federal law called the law on administrative procedure.

US District Judge MYONG JOUN has made a temporary prohibition order blocking the administration’s decision, saying that officials had not correctly explained their reasoning.

The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Boston, refused to block the decision of Joun, noting that the education department had sent the same driver letter to all the scholarship holders announcing the end of the funding. The letters did not contain any specific information on the reasons why a particular program was deemed to be in violation of the anti-dei policy, said the court of appeal.

The case only implies subsidies issued to the entities of the states that have continued. In total, the Ministry of Education has canceled around $ 600 million in teaching grants.

Last month, Trump signed an executive decree that seeks to dismantle the education service. The completely elimination of the ministry, however, would require an approval from the congress.

In two previous emergency requests filed by the Trump administration, the Supreme Court did not grant its requests.

In one, the court rejected the administration’s offer to avoid paying entrepreneurs for the American agency for international development, which has been reduced, immediately.

In the other, the court contributed to a decision on the question of whether Trump could dismiss a guard dog of the federal government, although because of a lower court decision, the administration was finally prevailed.