Several States Sue ED’s Freeze on Grant Funding

Attorneys general from 23 states and two governors on July 14 sued the Trump administration for withholding about $7 billion in education funding that had been approved by Congress.

On June 30, the Department of Education (ED) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) abruptly froze disbursements for six federally funded education formula grant programs. The attorneys general requested that the court overturn the freeze in funding, noting that this action has created chaos in school systems nationwide.

“The federal government cannot use our children’s classrooms to advance its assault on immigrant and working families,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James. “This illegal and unjustified funding freeze will be devastating for students and families nationwide, especially for those who rely on these programs for child care or to learn English. Congress allocated these funds, and the law requires that they be delivered. We will not allow this administration to rewrite the rules to punish the communities it doesn’t like.”

ED was required to issue the congressionally approved funding by July 1 to ensure that schools receive resources ahead of the new academic year, and cited no legal justification for the freeze, according to the lawsuit. The affected programs are the Migrant Education Program, Title II-A, Title III-A, Title IV-A, Title IV-B (i.e., the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program), and Adult Education Grants.

ED Email

The attorneys general explained that states on June 30 received a “vague, three-sentence email” claiming that a “review” was underway to align funding with “the president’s priorities,” without providing details on the duration or scope of the review. OMB has since claimed that the funding had been used to “subsidize a radical left-wing agenda” and to “promote illegal immigrant advocacy organizations,” which the plaintiffs stated is “patently false.” OMB also raised objections to the use of funds for scholarships for immigrant students and lessons on LGBTQ+ topics.

The funding freeze, according to the plaintiffs, impacted summer school and after-school programs that provide child care for working families, as well as professional development for teachers and support for English learners. They added that states have had little time to find replacement funding to address these needs, as budgets were finalized, staff were hired and contracts were signed based on the expectation that the funds would arrive on July 1. States and school districts may be forced to break contracts and slash programs they can no longer afford, they also contended.

“The plaintiff states have complied with the conditions for being eligible for funding for the impacted programs, including submitting state plans that have been approved by ED,” according to the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs argued that this funding freeze violated the Constitution and the federal Administrative Procedure Act. “It is Congress, not the executive branch, that possesses the power of the purse,” the plaintiff states contended in the lawsuit. “The Constitution does not empower the executive branch to unilaterally refuse to spend funds appropriated by Congress and enacted into law. Yet that is exactly what defendants are attempting to do here.”

The attorneys general asked the court to declare the funding freeze illegal and permanently block the action. They added that they will be seeking a preliminary injunction covering all plaintiff states and are asking for a writ of mandamus to compel the administration to distribute the funds that Congress appropriated for school systems.

“The agency defendants have acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner by: (a) relying on factors that Congress did not intend by conducting a discretionary review not permitted by statute; (b) failing to consider important aspects of the problem, including the plaintiff states’ substantial reliance interests in receiving funds for these programs on July 1, and the detrimental impacts the ED funding freeze would have on the plaintiff states’ education systems; and (c) failing to provide an explanation consistent with the record before the agency by claiming it is still ‘review[ing]’ the states’ applications and plans that ED previously approved,” according to the lawsuit.

State attorneys general filing the lawsuit represented the states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia. The governors of Pennsylvania and Kentucky were also named as plaintiffs.

Stakeholder, Congressional Response

Education stakeholder organizations also have been critical of ED’s funding freeze. All4Ed Chief Executive Officer Amy Loyd called it “nothing short of a betrayal,” adding that “our kids, especially those from underserved communities, will pay the price for these reckless decisions. Programs that are not just beneficial — but life-changing — are being held hostage.”

Loyd explained that ED action to “impound funds is not only harmful — it’s illegal. Congress appropriated these dollars. Holding them back without proper authority undermines the rule of law and disrupts planning for the very programs our students rely on most. These actions strike at the very heart of our values. They deepen inequality, dismantle support for the most vulnerable, and jeopardize the future of public education.”

In addition, 10 Republican Senators sent a recent letter to OMB seeking the release of this funding. These senators were Shelley Capito (R-W.Va.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Katie Britt (R-Ala.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Jim Justice (R-W.Va.), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Mike Rounds (R-S.D.).

“The decision to withhold this funding is contrary to President Trump’s goal of returning K-12 education to the states,” the senators wrote in the letter. “This funding goes directly to states and local school districts, where local leaders decide how this funding is spent, because as we know, local communities know how to best serve students and families. Withholding this funding denies states and communities the opportunity to pursue localized initiatives to support students and their families.”

For More Information

The lawsuit is available at https://tinyurl.com/2jsddb48.