Filed Date: April 4, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Several lawsuits have been brought challenging the Trump administration’s attempt to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education. This case is one; the others can be found here.
This case challenged the abrupt dismantling of the federal government's primary education research agency. On April 4, 2025, the Association for Education Finance and Policy, Inc. and the Institute for Higher Education Policy filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Represented by the Public Citizen Litigation Group, they sued the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) arguing that the Department was acting illegally by shutting down the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), an agency created by Congress.This case was assigned to Judge Trevor N. McFadden.
According to the complaint, Congress established IES in 2002 to conduct and share high-quality research, statistics, and evaluations related to education from early childhood through postsecondary study. The plaintiffs, organizations that rely on IES research for their work in education finance, policy, and higher education access, claimed that the DOE took several actions that effectively halted IES's operations: mass cancellation of contracts that supported IES research, elimination of approximately 90% of IES staff positions, and termination of remote access for outside researchers to existing data.
The plaintiffs brought five claims against these actions:
The plaintiffs asked the court to declare the defendants' actions unlawful and to issue orders to restore the terminated contracts, vacate the reduction in force of IES employees, and reverse the termination of remote access to restricted-use data. They also requested the court to prevent the defendants from taking any further actions that would hinder IES's ability to perform its legally required tasks and sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to immediately stop the shutdown of IES. Finally, they asked for their legal costs and attorney’s fees to be covered.
Subsequently, on April 17, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, detailing the harm the plaintiffs and their members were already experiencing due to the lack of access to IES data and the cancellation of research programs.
On June 3, 2025, Judge McFadden denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. 786 F.Supp.3d 13. The court found that the plaintiffs were "improperly bundling together a series of actions for wholesale correction rather than challenging one 'circumscribed [and] discrete' action." Instead of bringing a challenge to a discrete and final agency action, the plaintiffs brought a “challenge [to] an entire program by simply identifying specific allegedly-improper final agency actions within that program." The court also rejected the plaintiffs' constitutional claims, finding that they were simply repackaged APA claims to the "entire program," and similarly must fail. Therefore, the court found that the plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on the merits of their claims, which doomed their request for a preliminary injunction.
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 18. The amended complaint challenged the termination of eight specific programs run by the Department of Education: (1) the termination of the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study; (2) the termination of the 2020/25 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study; (3) the termination of the High School Longitudinal Study of 2009; (4) the termination of the High School and Beyond Longitudinal Study of 2022; (5) the termination of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten: 2024; (6) the termination of IES’s peer review program for new grant funding; (7) the termination of IES’s program for remote access to restricted-use data; and (8) the termination of processing applications for access to restricted-use data. The amended complaint added/removed factual allegations and causes of action under the APA to match the new focus of the complaint.
On July 2, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the court still lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims under the Tucker Act, and that the plaintiffs still were making a programmatic challenge, rather than a challenge to a discrete, final agency action as required by the APA.
The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on July 16, 2025. The second amended complaint removed the challenges to two of the terminations mentioned in the first amended complaint: the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study and IES's program for remote access to restricted-use data. The amended complaint also added more concrete allegations detailing how the remaining terminations caused harm to the plaintiffs and emphasized that the plaintiffs were challenging the final agency action of terminating the programs. Given the second amended complaint, the court denied as moot the defendants' motion to dismiss and ordered them to file a renewed motion by August 19.
On August 19, 2025, the defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. The defendants made three arguments: First, the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because they failed to demonstrate informational, organizational, or associational standing. Second, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the matter involving cancellation of government contracts under the Tucker Act. Third, the plaintiffs' claims failed under the APA because they did not challenge a discrete agency action, did not exhaust alternative remedies, and the challenged actions are committed to agency discretion.
The plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss on September 28, 2025. The plaintiffs argued that they do have standing because “each Plaintiff and AEFP’s members have been injured by the specific unlawful agency actions they challenge, and those injuries can be redressed by this Court.” They also argued that this court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims because none of the claims sound in contract, as required by the Tucker Act. On the merits, plaintiffs argued they “have adequately alleged that all of the challenged actions were arbitrary and capricious, and the terminations of the peer-review program and restricted-use data license processing were also contrary to law.”
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Aanvi Jhaveri (4/22/2025)
Jeremiah Price (6/10/2025)
Madena Mustafa (9/23/2025)
National Academy of Education v. Department of Education, District of District of Columbia (2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69843458/parties/association-for-education-finance-and-policy-inc-v-mcmahon/
McFadden, Trevor Neil (District of Columbia)
Early, Cormac A. (District of Columbia)
Gilbride, Karla A. (District of Columbia)
Georgiev-Remmel, Dimitar (District of Columbia)
Oblea, Erika Kirstie (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69843458/association-for-education-finance-and-policy-inc-v-mcmahon/
Last updated Oct. 23, 2025, 10:15 p.m.
State / Territory: District of Columbia
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: April 4, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The Association for Education Finance and Policy, Inc. and The Institute for Higher Education Policy
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
U.S. Department of Education (- United States (national) -), Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority: