A coalition led by New York Attorney General Letitia James and encompassing 16 states plus the District of Columbia has taken legal action against the Trump administration over educational fund cuts. This initiative is in response to the administration's decision to halt Department of Education grants designed to aid vulnerable K-12 students.
Courthouse News reported that the lawsuit filed in federal court seeks to reverse the abrupt discontinuation deemed harmful to educational recovery post-COVID-19.
The complaint, initiated in the Southern District of New York, focuses particularly on funds earmarked for low-income and unhoused students. This move follows the Department of Education's sudden cessation of funding access, initially available until March 2026, but stopped without a substantial explanation, as per the coalition's argument.
Plaintiffs argue this action disregards the Administrative Procedure Act by reversing a prior decision without a valid rationale and contravenes Congress's intentions.
Linda McMahon, appointed as the national education chief by President Trump, is a co-defendant in the case. The legal challenge highlights the critical nature of the terminated funds, originally part of the American Rescue Plan Act, meant to mitigate the economic impacts of the pandemic, particularly in education.
Filed on March 28, 2025, the lawsuit was triggered by an advisory from the Department of Education, which abruptly cut off access to significant American Rescue Plan Act grants.
States like California and Pennsylvania were particularly impacted, losing access to more than $200 million each in unexpended funds designed for education enhancements.
These funds were part of a larger educational initiative under the American Rescue Plan, enacted in 2021, aimed at addressing the various needs arising from the pandemic's impact, including supporting the Homeless Children and Youth (HCY) programs, Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER), and Emergency Assistance to Nonpublic Schools (EANS).
New York alone lost access to $134 million in unspent funds, designated for school repairs and educational programs to rectify learning losses caused by the pandemic.
This loss reflects a significant setback in efforts to support recovery in the education sector, particularly for those most affected by school closures and other disruptions.
The lawsuit voices strong opposition against the Trump administration's broader educational policy, which has been previously illustrated by legal disputes involving states like Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Illinois. These disputes have focused on cuts to other educational funds, such as those used for teacher recruitment in high-need areas.
In her statement, Attorney General Letitia James criticized the fund cuts as a severe blow to vulnerable students, undermining resources crucial to their academic and personal development. James articulated a profound commitment to opposing these cuts, emphasizing the role of public education in fostering success among all students.
"The Trump administration’s latest attack on our schools will hurt our most vulnerable students and make it harder for them to thrive," stated James, underscoring the perceived illegality and the harsh implications of the funding cuts.
The stance of the Trump administration, as communicated by Trump himself, points towards a broader agenda of minimizing the federal government's role in education.
Trump has openly expressed intentions to dissolve the Department of Education, signaling a stark shift in federal educational policy that aligns with his administration's views against what he describes as 'divisive ideologies.'
The states involved in the lawsuit, including Arizona, California, Delaware, and several others, collectively argue that Congress intended for the educational stabilization funds to continue beyond the pandemic.
This was meant to assist in compensating for the educational deficits experienced during periods of remote learning and other crises caused by the health emergency.
However, in contrast to this intent, the Department of Education's actions represent a significant diversion from initial plans, impacting efforts to stabilize educational systems in the aftermath of the global pandemic.
This legal battle, thus, not only challenges specific fiscal decisions but also confronts broader educational and political ideologies shaping public education's future.