Filed Date: June 20, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenged the termination of a $6 million award under the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to the Board of Education for the Silver Consolidated Schools (Board). On February 14, 2025, the Department of Education (DOE), by and through its Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, issued a Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) threatening schools and colleges across the country with the loss of federal funding if these education institutions continued to pursue ambiguously defined "DEI programs" that "teach students that certain racial groups bear unique moral burdens that others do not" and/or "stigmatize students who belong to racial groups." The Department of Education canceled the grants to the Board on April 29, 2025, announcing that the grants "violate the letter or purpose of Federal civil rights law; conflict with the Department’s policy of prioritizing merit, fairness, and excellence in education; undermine the well-being of the students these programs are intended to help; or constitute an inappropriate use of federal funds."
The Board sued on June 20, 2025, in the District Court for the District of New Mexico. The Board alleged that the termination of the grants violated the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause, violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, and violated the Spending Clause. The Board also claimed that the termination was void for vagueness, was ultra vires, and was contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Board asked the court to declare the DOE's actions unlawful and to enjoin the DOE from terminating the grants.
The case was assigned to District Judge William P. Johnson. On June 23, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO), or in the alternative, for a preliminary injunction barring the defendants from terminating the Board's grants.
Judge Johnson denied the plaintiffs' motion on July 21 and dismissed the case without prejudice. The court first found that the plaintiffs' claims were, in essence, contract claims that belonged exclusively in the Court of Federal Claims. "The non-continuation of Plaintiff’s grant funding is the type of contract claim that gives rise to Tucker Act jurisdiction." "Rather than challenging a regulatory action with some monetary implications, Plaintiff seeks payment of 'the grant monies' it claims entitlement to," which is the essence of a contract claim.
The court also conducted a preliminary injunction analysis on the supposition that the case was not one that belonged exclusively in the Court of Federal Claims. The court held that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims. On the First Amendment claim, the court ruled that "discontinuation of grant money does not infringe on free speech because Defendants’ actions do not prohibit or compel private speech." Turning to the Due Process claim, the court said that the plaintiffs had "not identified a protected property or liberty interest in a continuation of the grant funding (which is fatal to the void-for-vagueness due process claim)."
The court also rejected the plaintiffs' Spending Clause claim, since under the statutory framework, the Secretary is required to determine whether the continuation of the grant is in the "best interests of the Federal Government." The Secretary made that determination here, and the decision to terminate the plaintiffs' grant was within that discretion. This discretion also doomed the plaintiffs' ultra vires claim, since the defendants did not act outside of their authority. Finally, on the plaintiffs' APA claims, the court held that the defendants' decision on how to allocate a grant award "seems like a quintessential decision committed to agency discretion by law," meaning that it would not be reviewable under the APA.
Based on these findings, the court said that the plaintiffs could not succeed on their request for preliminary injunction, given that they were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims. Therefore, the court rejected the plaintiffs' request and, based on its holding that the claims were contractual in nature, dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
The case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Jeremiah Price (7/10/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70599333/parties/board-of-education-for-the-silver-consolidated-schools-v-mcmahon/
Johnson, William Paul (New Mexico)
Kambli, Abhishek (New Mexico)
Sirkovich, Eitan (New Mexico)
Allen, Aletheia (New Mexico)
Marcus, Lawrence M (New Mexico)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70599333/board-of-education-for-the-silver-consolidated-schools-v-mcmahon/
Last updated Aug. 21, 2025, 1:27 p.m.
State / Territory: New Mexico
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 20, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The Board of Education for the Silver Consolidated Schools
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Board of Education (- United States (national) -), Federal
United States (- United States (national) -), Federal
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Spending/Appropriations Clauses
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority: