A federal judge in Massachusetts has struck down a Trump administration policy that led the U.S. Department of Education to cancel hundreds of millions of dollars in teacher training grants connected by the administration to diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, initiatives. U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley ruled that the Education Department had not established clear standards for determining which programs qualified as DEI related and had failed to adequately consider the consequences for institutions, teachers and people preparing to enter the teaching profession.
The ruling follows a long running legal dispute between the federal government and eight Democratic led states, including California, Massachusetts and New Jersey. The states challenged the Education Department’s decision after the agency announced in February 2025 that it was terminating more than $600 million in grants, arguing that the programs promoted what the administration described as “divisive ideologies.” The affected funding came primarily through the Teacher Quality Partnership and Supporting Effective Educator Development programs, which are designed to strengthen teacher preparation and professional development.
Judge Kelley’s decision focused heavily on how the Education Department reached its decision rather than on the broader political debate over DEI itself. According to the ruling, the department did not provide sufficiently identifiable criteria for deciding which programs should be considered DEI related and therefore subject to termination. Kelley concluded that the agency had acted arbitrarily and failed to properly evaluate the reliance that states, universities, educators and teacher training programs had placed on the federal funding.
Education Department Grant Cancellations Challenged in Court
The scale of the cancellations was significant. Kelley said more than 90% of grants awarded through the two programs were terminated under the disputed directive. In total, 109 grants were canceled, including 40 awarded to universities and other institutions located in the eight states that brought the lawsuit. The decision therefore affects a wide range of organizations involved in preparing new teachers, rather than a small number of specialized DEI programs.
The two grant programs have broader purposes than DEI initiatives alone. The Education Department describes the Teacher Quality Partnership program as supporting the preparation and professional development of prospective and new teachers, while the Supporting Effective Educator Development program is intended to expand evidence based approaches to preparing and developing educators. The department continues to operate both programs and announced new competitions for 2026, indicating that federal funding for teacher preparation remains part of its education policy even as the dispute over the canceled grants continues.
The case has also highlighted the relationship between the executive branch and the courts over federal spending decisions. In March 2025, another federal judge ordered the administration to restore the grants while the states’ challenge proceeded. The administration appealed, and in April 2025 the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the grant terminations to continue while the litigation moved forward. The Supreme Court’s action was a stay pending further proceedings rather than a final ruling on whether the Education Department’s underlying policy complied with federal administrative law.
That distinction became important in Kelley’s latest decision. Her ruling addressed whether the February 2025 agency directive itself complied with the Administrative Procedure Act, the federal law governing how executive agencies must make many policy decisions. She concluded that it did not, finding the policy arbitrary and capricious. The ruling therefore represents a separate legal determination from the Supreme Court’s earlier decision to allow the grant cancellations to remain in effect while the case continued.
The judge also pointed to the practical effects of abruptly ending the funding. Teacher preparation programs can depend on federal grants to support training, partnerships and other educational activities. Kelley said the Education Department had not adequately considered the people who relied on those grants, including teachers and individuals moving through teacher training pipelines. The issue is particularly relevant as schools and education systems continue to focus on recruiting and retaining qualified teachers.
Ruling Could Affect Future Federal Education Funding
The financial consequences of the ruling are more complicated than simply restoring the canceled money. Kelley said that claims seeking to recover funds already lost because of the terminations would have to be pursued separately in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. At the same time, she retained authority to determine whether the original agency directive was lawful under the Administrative Procedure Act. This means the ruling settles an important legal question but does not automatically return every dollar that was previously canceled.
The dispute is part of a broader change in federal education policy under the Trump administration, which has sought to reduce or redirect programs it associates with DEI while emphasizing other priorities such as academic achievement, literacy and career preparation. The Education Department’s 2026 grant competitions for teacher preparation, for example, have emphasized evidence based practices, literacy and workforce development. The department has also continued to describe teacher training programs as important tools for improving student outcomes and recruiting qualified educators.
The decision could therefore have consequences beyond the specific grants involved in this case. Federal agencies frequently attach conditions and priorities to grant programs, while recipients depend on those rules to plan projects and budgets. Kelley’s reasoning underscores the legal importance of providing clear standards and following administrative procedures when an agency substantially changes how previously approved funding is treated.
The Education Department had not publicly responded to the ruling at the time of the reports. Further legal proceedings could determine how the decision affects the canceled grants and whether the administration seeks to challenge parts of the ruling. For the states and institutions involved, the decision provides a significant legal finding in their challenge, but questions over compensation and the practical fate of the affected funding remain separate issues.
Ultimately, the case illustrates how disputes over education policy can extend beyond arguments about what should be taught or which programs deserve federal support. The latest ruling centered on the process the federal government used to cancel the grants, including the clarity of its criteria, consideration of affected institutions and compliance with administrative law. As litigation continues, the case could become another important test of how federal education funding can be redirected while remaining within the legal procedures governing federal agencies.
