Supreme Court allows Trump to suspend grants to teachers

The Supreme Court on Friday left Trump’s administration temporarily suspend $ 65 million in teachers’ grants that the government claims to promote initiatives for diversity, equality and integration, an early victory for the administration.

The court order has not signed, which is typical when judges act on emergency applications. The temporary pause will remain in force while the case is exercised.

The ruling was 5 to 4, with five of the Court Conservatives – Judges Amy Conside Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Brett M. Kavanaugh – in the majority. Justice leader John G. Roberts Jr. He voted with the three Liberal Judges of the Court of Justice in the disagreement.

The order came in response to a series of emergencies from Trump’s administration by asking the judges to intervene and overturn the decisions of the lower court that have temporarily blocking parts of President Trump’s agenda.

The grants in the case helped to place teachers in poor and rural areas and aimed to hire a different workforce that reflects the communities it served.

In February, the Department of Education sent the grant recipients, the programs “fail to serve the interests of the United States” taking into account the factors in addition to “value, justice and excellence” and allowing waste and fraud.

Eight states, including California and New York, have been suspended to stop cuts, arguing that they would undermine both urban and rural school areas, demanding them to hire “long -term substitutes, educators with unauthorized credentials”.

Judge Myong J. Joun of the Federal Regional Court in Massachusetts temporarily ordered the grants to remain available while considering the lawsuit. The US Court of Appeal for the first circuit in Boston has rejected a request from Trump’s administration to overthrow Judge Joun’s order, saying that the government’s arguments were based on “speculation and exaggeration”.

With the temporary involvement of the cancellation of grants, Judge Joun said he tried to maintain the status quo. He wrote that if he did not do so, “dozens of programs on which dozens of programs will be exhausted, public schools, public universities, students, teachers and teachers will be glorified”. On the other hand, he argued, if he stopped the action of Trump’s administration, the teams will simply continue to receive funds made from Congress.

In its brief series, the court stated that the challengers “did not retrieve” Trump’s administration’s claim that “it is unlikely to regain grant funds as soon as they were disbursed”. On the contrary, the mandate said that “the government argues that respondents will not suffer irreparable damage” while grants cease. The court said it was based on statements by the challengers that “they have the financial means to keep their programs running.”

In a disagreement, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who joined Justice Sonia Sotomayor, faced that the grants will end will “cause significant damage to the candidates – the fact that the government is just questioning”.

He added: “Worse still, the government has not even defending the legality of its actions.”

In her disagreement, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that teachers’ training efforts would be harmed by the court’s action.

“States have consistently represented that the loss of these grants will force them – indeed, has already forced – to limit teachers’ training programs,” he wrote.

When the Trump government asked the Supreme Court to intervene, Sarah M. Harris, the Attorney General, wrote in an emergency request that Judge Joun’s order was one of the many judgments of the lower court that ruled out government initiatives.

“The goal is clear: to stop the executive on its routes and to prevent the administration from changing the direction to hundreds of billions of dollars of government generosity that the executive branch considers contrary to the interests of the United States and fiscal health.”

He added: “Only this court can make the ship right – and time to do this is now.”

In response, the states said the judges should decide a difference each time.

The brief additive added that the cancellation of the grants was not accompanied by logic specifically for each grant. Boilerplate’s letters said: “He did not explain how grant -funded programs deal with any of the supposed deviations.”