Case: Arlington School Board v. McMahon
1:25-cv-01434 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Filed Date: Aug. 29, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
The case is about Title IX rights for transgender students and the limits of federal power in coercing state and local school policies.
On August 28, 2025, Arlington School Board (ASB) brought this action under the Administrative Procedure Act APA) and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, against the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) and Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. Previously, ASB allowed students to use bathrooms that aligned with their gender identity. ASB alleged that the Department withheld federal funding to coerce the school into changing this policy, which the Department claimed was in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Represented by private counsel, ASB filed this action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia seeking to vacate the Department's designation of ASB as "high-risk," meaning that all Department funds going towards the school system (including formula funding, discretionary grants, and impact aid grants) would be done only through reimbursement, as well as the Department's determination to freeze funds. The case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Rossie D. Alston, Jr. and Magistrate Judge Lindsey R. Vaala.
On September 5, 2025, the court denied ASB’s request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court reasoned that the requested relief would require ordering the payment of federal funds, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims pursuant to the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491.
The court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Department of Education v. California, 145 S. Ct. 966 (2025), in which the Court held that "the APA’s limited waiver of [sovereign] immunity does not extend to orders to enforce a contractual obligation to pay money along the lines of what the District Court ordered here," and that the Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. § 1491) granted jurisdiction to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims for suits based on "any express or implied contract with the United States." The court also cited its decision in Sustainability Institute v. Trump, which previously applied California to stay an order requiring restoration of frozen grant funds. Ruling that jurisdiction lies exclusively with the Court of Federal Claims, the district court denied the motions for injunctive relief and dismissed the complaints without prejudice so that ASB could refile in the proper forum.
On September 10, 2025, ASB appealed the court's order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and filed an emergency motion for injunctive relief pending appeal. On October 1, 2025, the appellate court denied ASB’s motion for injunctive relief pending appeal. The order was entered at the direction of Chief Judge Diaz with the concurrence of Judge Richardson and Judge Rushing, and the judges provided no rationale for their decision. The following day, ASBmoved to expedite the appeal.
On October 10, 2025 the Fourth Circuit consolidated this case with Fairfax County School Board v. McMahon, and granted both Fairfax County’s and the Arlington School Board’s motions to expedite the appeal. It denied motions in both cases seeking to hold the appeals in abeyance and set an expedited briefing schedule.
Over the course of the next year, several parties sought to join both appellants and appellees as amici curiae. Equality Virginia, Arlington Gender Identity Alliance, Northern Virginia Families, the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the NAACP were recognized by court order as amici in support of ASB. On the other side, Alliance Defending Freedom, the Commonwealth of Virginia and 20 other states, and America First Legal Foundation were recognized by court order as amici in support of the Department.
On October 15, 2026, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal of the case. On de novo review, the court held that ASB's claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Department of Education’s high-risk designations and enforcement of Title IX were not contractual in nature and thus fell outside the Tucker Act’s scope. The court distinguished prior precedent involving grant terminations, emphasizing that the requested relief targeted statutory enforcement rather than contractual obligations. The case was remanded for further proceedings. Judge Richardson dissented on the grounds that the claims arose from the districts’ grant agreements, placing the claims under the Tucker Act’s exclusive jurisdiction.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Talia Richland (10/29/2026)
Nicole Brigstock (12/17/2025)
Related Cases
State of California v. U.S Department of Education, District of Massachusetts (2025)
Fairfax County School Board v. McMahon, Eastern District of Virginia (2025)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71230502/parties/arlington-school-board-v-mcmahon/
Alston, Rossie David (Virginia)
Attorney, Lindsey Halligan,
Attorney, Matthew James
Bird, Brenna
Block, Andrew John
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Resources
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71230502/arlington-school-board-v-mcmahon/
Last updated Nov. 11, 2026, 4:33 a.m.
Docket for: Arlington School Board v. McMahon
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Transgender Bathroom Access Cases
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Trump Administration 2.0: Litigation and Investigations Involving the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Aug. 29, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The independent branch of the Arlington County government that administers public schools in Arlington, Virginia.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
U.S. Department of Education
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Spending/Appropriations Clauses
Other Dockets:
Eastern District of Virginia 1:25-cv-01434
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 25-02107
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Discrimination Basis:
Affected Sex/Gender(s):
LGBTQ+:
Case Summary of Arlington School Board v. McMahon, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/46935/ (last updated 12/17/2025).