Filed Date: April 4, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
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. They sued the U.S. Department of Education under various laws, primarily the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and raised constitutional concerns. Represented by the Public Citizen Litigation Group, the plaintiffs sought a court order to stop the Department of Education's actions and to restore the functions of the research agency. They argued 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 lawsuit, 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 Department of Education took several actions that effectively halted IES's operations. These actions included the mass cancellation of contracts that supported IES research, the elimination of approximately 90% of IES staff positions, and the termination of remote access for outside researchers to existing data. The plaintiffs argued that these actions exceeded the authority of the Department, violated specific laws, and were made without proper reasoning.
The lawsuit outlined five legal claims:
The plaintiffs asked the court to declare the defendants' actions unlawful and to issue several orders. These included 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. Additionally, 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, Judge McFadden denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. 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." Since the plaintiffs' APA claims failed, so too did the constitutional claims. 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. 2025 WL 1568301.
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, 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. 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.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Aanvi Jhaveri (4/22/2025)
Jeremiah Price (6/10/2025)
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)
Gilbride, Karla A. (District of Columbia)
Pulver, Adam R. (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 Aug. 21, 2025, 9:25 p.m.
State / Territory: District of Columbia
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government (Appointments/Civil Service)
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government (Data Access and/or Takedowns)
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:
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: