States Sue to Force Feds to Release $7 Billion in Education Funding

Yomiuri Shimbun

13 hours ago

A group of 24 states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration Monday over its withholding of nearly $7 billion in education funding for after-school care, English-language learning, teacher training and other programs, asking a federal judge to force the federal government to release the money.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Rhode Island, accuses the Trump administration of violating the Constitution and exceeding executive authority by overruling Congress' spending power. It also argues that the freeze violates federal laws governing funding processes, the Impoundment Control Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.
School districts and their partners expected the funding, which supports six long-running grant programs, to be distributed July 1. Instead, the Education Department notified states that the money was under review for compliance with President Donald Trump's priorities.
At the time, the Office of Management and Budget said it was investigating whether any of the grant money had been used in the past to fund a 'radical leftwing agenda.' It did not indicate when the review might be completed and said no decisions had been made.
The plaintiff states' 23 attorneys general and two governors, all Democrats, sued Education Secretary Linda McMahon, OMB Director Russell Vought and Trump.
The Education Department and the OMB did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.
The lawsuit argues that, under the Constitution, the executive branch cannot refuse to spend funds appropriated by Congress. It claims that the funding freeze has 'caused chaos' for K-12 school districts and could affect hundreds of thousands of adult learners in high school diploma and English language programs.
'Congress allocated these funds and the law requires they be delivered,' New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) said in a statement. 'We will not allow this administration to rewrite the rules to punish the communities it doesn't like.'
The withholding of the money sets up another court fight between the Trump administration and its critics. Since Trump took office in January, his administration has faced accusations of constitutional violations, unlawful actions and executive overreach in more than 300 lawsuits.
The Post reported last month that the administration has been preparing to refuse to spend congressionally mandated funds to test the Impoundment Control Act, which is meant to prevent the executive branch from overturning spending decisions made by Congress.
The plaintiffs sought relief for their states only, which Democratic attorneys general have typically done in the funding-related lawsuits they have filed against the Trump administration, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser said at a news conference Monday afternoon. The Supreme Court's June ruling that federal judges cannot grant nationwide injunctions but can grant relief only to those party to the lawsuit did not affect the plaintiffs' plans in this case, Weiser said.
The affected grant programs fund teachers' professional development; English-language learning programs; adult literacy programs; before- and after-school care; education support for the children of migrant agricultural workers; and student enrichment including mental health services, college and career counseling, and STEM education. Most of the grant programs have been in place for decades.
The funding freeze had immediate effects on some school districts and after-school care providers, whose budgets and hiring had factored in the money, educators said. In the lawsuit, the attorneys general said school districts are canceling or shrinking programs and face cutting staff.
The states allege that Trump violated the Impoundment Control Act, which prohibits the executive branch from unilaterally refusing to spend appropriated funds without following certain procedures. The administration did not follow the legal procedures that lay out when and how the departments can refuse to release funds approved by Congress, the states allege.
The lawsuit also contends that the administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to offer 'a reasoned explanation' for the funding review. The freeze also violates the Constitution's spending clause and the principle of separation of powers, the lawsuit claims.
'Trump and McMahon have no right to hold these funds back. And in doing so they are jeopardizing critical programs our students, schools and families rely on,' California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) said at the Monday news conference.
The lawsuit laid out various consequences the states could suffer if the administration does not release the funds, including staff layoffs. The states collectively receive about $3.6 billion of the withheld funds, Bonta said.
In Delaware, the plaintiffs said, children whose families move frequently for agriculture work will probably lose services including summer school, preschool literacy, STEAM camp and tutoring. In Michigan, English-learning programs with more than 270 staff members and nearly 100,000 students will be at risk of ending. In California, nearly 700 enrichment or summer programs that rely on some of the funds could be at risk of staff layoffs or closure.
In New York, some summer programs for children have already shut down, leaving families without child care, according to the attorney general's office. An estimated 65,000 students in New York could lose access to after-school or summer programs, and 80,000 could lose adult education and literacy services, according to the lawsuit.
The state education department employs 67 people whose salaries are covered by the frozen funds. The state will have to carry out layoffs if the money is not released, James's office said.
Separately, a group of 32 senators called on Vought and McMahon to release the funding in a letter sent Monday, saying the money was being withheld illegally.
'It is unacceptable that the administration is picking and choosing what parts of the appropriations law to follow, and you must immediately implement the entire law as Congress intended and as the oaths you swore require you to do,' wrote the senators, led by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Washington).