Case: State of Washington v. United States Department of Education

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 suit was brought to challenge the U.S. Department of Education’s decision to discontinue mental health funding to elementary and secondary schools created by Congress in the wake of the Uvalde school shooting (the “Non-Continuation Decision”). On June 30, 2025, several states (Washington, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin) filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against the U.S. Department of Education and its Secretary. The case was assigned to Judge Kymberly K. Evanson.

Around April 29, 2025, the Department notified Plaintiffs that it would discontinue its Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program (MHSP) and its School-Based Mental Health Services Grant Program (SBMH) for schools within their jurisdictions because the grants conflicted with the Trump Administration’s priorities of  “merit, fairness, and excellence in education.” Plaintiffs challenged the Non-Continuation Decision, alleging that the Department violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the Spending Clause, Separation of Powers, and acted ultra vires by discontinuing the grants not in accordance with established guidelines and criteria to do so. They sought injunctive relief barring implementation of the Non-Continuation Decision and “requiring the Department to make a new continuation award decision prior to the next budget period without considering performance issues–if any–caused by the Department’s Non-Continuation Decision and its disruptive effects”; declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act; and attorneys’ costs and fees.

On July 8, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, requesting the court “issue an order rescinding the unlawful Non-Continuation Decision and enjoining Defendants from discontinuing Program grants based on new priorities.” After briefing and a hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction, but before the court ruled on the motion, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim on September 5, 2025. They argued that because the State-Plaintiffs themselves were not themselves the recipients of the grants, they lacked standing and legal authority to bring this suit. Further, because the suit involved contractual rights with the federal government, they argued the proper venue for the suit was the U.S. Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act.

The Court held oral arguments on Defendants’ motion to dismiss for October 9, 2025, and denied Defendants’ motion to stay the hearing in light of the government shutdown because of the Defendants’ “boilerplate request” and the “time-sensitive” relief request by the Plaintiffs. 2025 WL 2841595.

On October 21, 2025, the court issued an order denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 2025 WL 2966255. The court held that the plaintiff-states did have standing on behalf of their public education institutions, and also faced fiscal harm from indirect effects of funding cuts to private education institutions. It also found that the plaintiffs’ claims did not sound in contract, and so the Tucker Act did not apply to the subject matter jurisdiction issue. Finally, the court held that the plaintiff-states adequately stated a claim because the Non-Continuation Decision is reviewable under the APA. 

Shortly after, on October 27, 2025, the court granted the State-plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction as to most of the grantees in the record. 2025 WL 3004675. The court found the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on at least the merits of their APA claim that the Non-Continuation Decision was arbitrary and capricious because it was unexplained and conclusory, and the Department did not consider reliance interests of the grantees. However, the Court did limit the scope of relief to grants documented in Plaintiff States other than Nevada because no grantee representatives in Nevada submitted declarations explaining “how the discontinuation decisions are already impacting Plaintiff States’ students, prospective school psychologists, and community partnerships,” unlike the other Plaintiff States which did do so. As such, the Department was enjoined from implementing or enforcing the Non-Continuation Decision for grantees in all of the Plaintiff States, except for Nevada. The court ordered the preliminary injunction to stay in effect pending further orders from the court. 

On November 10, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. Two days later, on November 12, Defendants filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit of the October 27, 2025, preliminary injunction. Oral argument was scheduled for December 2, 2025.

On December 4, the Ninth Circuit denied the Department's request for a stay of the PI. 2025 WL 3486895. The court found that the Department had not made a strong showing that Plaintiff States’ claims fall within the Tucker Act’s scope because the States are not entitled continued funding unless the Secretary of Education affirmatively decides to continue their grants. This places their claims within the APA rather than the Tucker Act, which does not require the case to be heard in the Court of Federal Claims, as the Department argues. The court also found the Department hadn't made a strong showing that the discontinuation decisions are committed to agency discretion and are therefore unreviewable under the APA, and that the Department would not face irreparable injury because the PI doesn't require any disbursement of funds.

The case is ongoing.