770 F.Supp.3d 822
D. Md.2025Background
- Plaintiffs AACTE, NCTR, and MACTE are membership organizations whose members operate teacher-preparation programs that received federal grants under TQP, SEED, and TSL; most recipients were notified in February 2025 that their awards were terminated and funding withheld.
- The Department issued a February 5, 2025 internal Directive to review grants for alleged DEI-related discrimination and, shortly after, sent form Termination Letters citing that the grants "no longer effectuate Department priorities" and citing 2 C.F.R. § 200.340(a)(4).
- President Trump’s Executive Order 14151 (Jan. 20, 2025) directed agencies to terminate DEI-related programs and grants; Plaintiffs allege the Department terminated the grants pursuant to that Termination Provision.
- The Department issued a press release describing termination of over $600M in "divisive" teacher‑training grants; Plaintiffs sued on March 3, 2025 asserting (1) Fifth Amendment vagueness and (2) APA violations, and moved for a preliminary injunction to reinstate awards.
- The court held an expedited hearing, found Plaintiffs have standing, concluded Plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on their Fifth Amendment vagueness claim (because they failed to show the terminations were taken pursuant to the Executive Order), but were likely to succeed on their APA claim (terminations arbitrary and capricious and violated GEPA/notice-and-comment principles); the court granted in part and denied in part the preliminary injunction, ordering reinstatement of the affected grant awards for Plaintiffs’ members and setting a nominal bond of $100.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing | Organizations and members suffered concrete monetary and programmatic injury from terminated grants | Terminations elsewhere (e.g., TRO in California case) moot or defeat standing for some plaintiffs | Plaintiffs (NCTR, AACTE, MACTE) have Article III standing at time of filing; venue proper in D. Md. |
| Were terminations effectuated pursuant to EO 14151 (basis for Fifth Amendment vagueness challenge)? | Terminations were temporally and substantively tied to the Executive Order and press release; EO is source of action | Department points to its own Directive and regulatory authorities; Termination Letters do not mention the EO | Plaintiffs failed to show the Termination Letters were issued pursuant to EO 14151; court did not reach vagueness merits and denied relief on that claim |
| APA / rulemaking: did Department lawfully terminate under 2 C.F.R. § 200.340(a)(4) and comply with GEPA/notice-and-comment? | "Agency priorities" that undergird grant awards are regulatory and may not be changed without GEPA/APA notice-and-comment; terminations lacked individualized reason and process | Department contends priorities can change with administration and §200.340(a)(4) permits termination for changed agency priorities | Court: Plaintiffs likely to succeed on APA claim—terminations arbitrary and capricious, lacked reasoned explanation and individualized review in the record, and department priorities affecting grants are subject to GEPA/notice-and-comment |
| Irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest | Loss of funding will shutter programs, terminate staff, harm students and missions—irreparable injury | Government interest in ending discriminatory DEI practices and in executing policy changes | Plaintiffs demonstrated likely irreparable harm; equities and public interest favor preliminary injunction; court ordered reinstatement for affected plaintiffs' members and set nominal bond ($100) |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (preliminary injunction standard)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (two-part test for final agency action)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (arbitrary-and-capricious review standard)
- Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 591 U.S. 1 (review limited to agency's stated grounds)
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (concrete-harm standing analysis)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requirements)
- FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239 (due process/fair notice principles)
- Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 600 U.S. 181 (organizational/associational standing principles)