Judge Struck Down Teacher-Training Grant Cuts
A federal judge ruled the Education Department violated the law when it cut $600 million in training funds.
Updated on Sept. 18, 2026 in Financial Aid
Live Poll
Should federal agencies be required to allow public comment before cutting major education grant programs?
US District Judge Angel Kelley ruled that an Education Department directive cutting $600 million in teacher-training grants failed to follow required notice and comment procedures. The ruling, issued in Boston, determined the administration ignored the reliance states and schools had on the funding.
Why it matters
The administration had previously characterized the grant programs as supporting divisive ideologies, while eight states argued the money was essential for training math, science, and special education teachers. Although the judge struck down the directive, the decision does not automatically restore the lost funding.
The Education Department cuts impacted more than 100 programs that typically focus on educator retention over five years. Eight states participated in the lawsuit to challenge the removal of the $600 million in funding.
The players
Angel Kelley
Angel Kelley is a US District Judge who presided over the case in Boston, Massachusetts.
Education Department
The Education Department is a federal executive agency responsible for overseeing national education policy and funding.
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court is the highest federal court in the United States.
The details
Judge Kelley found that the administration failed to account for the impact on states, teachers, and principals when it terminated the programs in February 2025. While the Supreme Court had previously allowed the cuts to proceed in April 2025, this latest decision concludes that the initial directive itself was unlawful.
Timeline
February 2025: The Education Department cut $600 million in teacher-training grants.
April 2025: The Supreme Court ruled the cuts could continue during ongoing litigation.
September 17, 2026: Judge Angel Kelley struck down the administration directive.
Culture Shift
This ruling highlights a fundamental tension regarding the Administrative Procedure Act's notice and comment requirements in federal governance. The court's decision signals a pushback against executive actions that overlook the established procedural standards for policy implementation.
Teachers and school districts that relied on these grants for professional development must navigate continued budget uncertainty while the legal process shifts to the Court of Federal Claims. The ruling does not provide immediate financial relief to the programs affected by the 2025 cuts.
The takeaway
The court's decision underscores the necessity of following established administrative procedures even when a federal agency seeks to overhaul grant programs. Future policy changes must account for the reliance of state and local institutions to avoid similar legal reversals.
What happens next
Legal teams must now bring arguments regarding the recovery of the grant funding to the Court of Federal Claims.
Further reading
For more on how government funding affects educators, see the Financial Aid section.
Live Poll
Should federal agencies be required to allow public comment before cutting major education grant programs?
