Supreme Court Stays MA Dist Court Order That Trump Disburse Education Grants, Over Chief Justice Roberts Objection
5-4 decision, with the three liberals filing dissents plus “THE CHIEF JUSTICE would deny the application.”
Perhaps this is the beginning of what I have been calling for, the Supreme Court putting a hold on runaway District Court judges acting as if they are members of the executive branch.
The Supreme Court — over Chief Justice Roberts’ objection — granted a stay of an Order from the Massachusetts District Court compelling the Trump administration to continue paying Department of Education contracts.
From the Order:
PER CURIAM.
On March 10, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued what it styled as a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining the Government from terminating various education-related grants. The order also requires the Government to pay out past-due grant obligations and to continue paying obligations as they accrue. The District Court’s conclusion rested on a finding that respondents are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 60 Stat. 237. On March 26, the Government filed this application to vacate the District Court’s March 10 order (as extended on March 24) and requested an immediate administrative stay. The application was presented to JUSTICE JACKSON and by her referred to the Court.
***
As for the remaining stay factors, respondents have not refuted the Government’s representation that it is unlikely to recover the grant funds once they are disbursed. No grantee “promised to return withdrawn funds should its grant termination be reinstated,” and the District Court declined to impose bond. App. to Application To Vacate Order 15a, 17a. By contrast, the Government compellingly argues that respondents would not suffer irreparable harm while the TRO is stayed. Respondents have represented in this litigation that they have the financial wherewithal to keep their programs running. So, if respondents ultimately prevail, they can recover any wrongfully withheld funds through suit in an appropriate forum. And if respondents instead decline to keep the programs operating, then any ensuing irreparable harm would be of their own making. “Such self-imposed costs are not properly the subject of inquiry on a motion for stay.” Cuomo v. NRC, 772 F. 2d 972, 977 (CADC 1985) (per curiam).
We construe the application as seeking a stay pending appeal and grant the application. The March 10, 2025 order and March 24, 2025 extension of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, case No. 1:25– cv–10548, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.
It is so ordered.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE would deny the application.
MORE TO FOLLOW
Justice Kagan’s dissent was mostly procedural – that it’s premature:
The risk of error increases when this Court decides cases—as here—with barebones briefing, no argument, and scarce time for reflection. Sometimes, the Court must act in that way despite the risk. And there will of course be good-faith disagreements about when that is called for. But in my view, nothing about this case demanded our immediate intervention. Rather than make new law on our emergency docket, we should have allowed the dispute to proceed in the ordinary way. I respectfully dissent.
Justice Jackson’s dissent, joined by Sotomayor, breathed fire:
It is beyond puzzling that a majority of Justices conceive of the Government’s application as an emergency. It is likewise baffling that anyone is persuaded that the equities favor the Government when the Government does not even argue that the lower courts erred in concluding that it likely behaved unlawfully. This application should have been denied for numerous obvious and independent reasons, and the Court does itself—and the legal process—no favors in deciding to grant it.
***
This Court’s eagerness to insert itself into this early stage of ongoing litigation over the lawfulness of the Department’s actions—even when doing so facilitates the infliction of significant harms on the Plaintiff States, and even though the Government has not bothered to press any argument that the Department’s harm‐causing conduct is lawful—is equal parts unprincipled and unfortunate. It is also entirely unwarranted. We do not ordinarily exercise jurisdiction over TROs, and this one is no different. The Government has not articulated any concrete harm it will suffer if the grant terminations are not implemented in the next three days. And this Court will have every opportunity to address all of the legal issues the Government has hastily shoved up the chain of review, and more, in due course. Because we could have and should have easily denied this application, I respectfully dissent.7
Hopefully we will see a series of stays issued in other cases now on appeal. CJ Roberts wants the normal appeals process to work, but it’s not working. There are serious and substantial systemic concerns that some District Court Judges have wildly overstepped their boundaries and no longer conduct judicial review, they actively manage the executive branch – determining in cases over which they have no jurisdiction who the executive branch hires, fires. pays, contracts with, and how it secures data and provides access to systems.
The only constitutional crisis is that Article III is hijacking Article II.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Roberts . . . sheeesh. What a squish.
At least ACB didn’t wimp out on this one.
This should not even be close. Court of Claims exists for exactly this reason. No jurisdiction in the district court.
“ Court of Claims exists for exactly this reason.”
Bingo, the individuals who are wronged can pursue their cases individually …
This over reaching and screeching “… but I don’t like your policies …” judiciary needs to be shut down until they get the message
And Roberts is wrong to let this play out in every case. It causes irreparable harm to Trump’s administration and appointees as they have only 4 years in office – and can’t be spent on fighting illegitimate lawfare of legal actions.
Causing irreparable harm seems to be the point.
Only 4 years, that’s the plan and he’s in on it
Did you miss “…the District Court declined to impose bond”? Why as it is Federal Law which makes the entire order by the District Court null and void.
What the F—-
A judge refusing Stopping the payments long enough to verify the validity of the expense which is normal business accounts payable procedures is inane.
I have held my tongue on roberts while others have condemned him – his vote is simply BS
Roberts always has the same stoopid look on his punum every time his pic is taken
looks like his bud , Shrub
probs the same look he gave the kid they have pics of with Roberts
Hold on a second. Looking at the picture of Roberts and Jackson one might get the false impression that Jackson was merely somewhat shorter than Roberts. Uh no. She must be standing on the box. Or those are 2 separate images AI merged together. She’s more Robert Reich height. .
But which one is a “woman”?
Stop. Just… stop.
Stop what. Pointing out the utter INSANITY of her saying, under oath, that she couldn’t answer what a woman was because she wasn’t a biologist?
None of us are biologists, either, so we can’t tell who the woman in that picture is.
We are never going to let anybody forget the insane pretzels that leftists twist themselves into to justify this nonsense.
Both have demonstrated to be legal midgets
If the green witch from Wicked had a girl child with the Mayor of Munchkinville….
About time.
This gutting of spending needs to happen at every level. It’s impossible to kill this beast.
Exactly what I’ve been saying.
Roberts WANTS Trump hamstrung. He’s a leftist, through and through. He just play-acts at being a ‘moderate’ to try and safeguard his precious legitimacy.
He is 100% on board with these judges, and just wants to be able to play dumb and say, ‘aw gosh gee WHIZ guys, we have to respect this process!’
Roberts never intended to uphold the Constitution. He is what he is: a vain, status-seeking lefty blowhard concerned only his image among the Uniparty satraps.
Maybe, but you were never smart enough to get accepted to a law school, as our host clearly was, so maybe you should just go back to brewing coffee at Starbucks.
Watch out, y’all. JR has been ripping sick burns from tweens.
And what fly by night low key law school did you graduate from?
Sorry. That was directed to JR.
LOL. Our credentialed “Althouse fake Republican ambulance-chasing lawyer” checks in.
He’s a Recovering Lutheran with a job at Starbucks.
You’re a sh*tty third rate troll who flacks for nickels here.
Who’s the better man?
‘Taint you.
Oh sure, JR….Michael Avenatti was admitted to law school and look where his “intelligence” landed him: a decade inside a federal penitentiary. DUMB observation on your part.
Calm down big boy! It’s been obvious since 2017 that Roberts can’t stand the ground that Trump walks on and has done and will do everything that he can to screw him over
Hang on. The vanity/blowhard claim is fair b/c he uses his position to advance his personal preferences of the role of the Judiciary, the pace of change/rulings and the image/public perception of SCOTUS. He is exactly who he was when nominated; a center/right Jurist who wanted the institution of the Judiciary to move slowly, modestly and refraining from sweeping rulings to allow public sentiment to build in support of the direction of change.
It is very fair to describe him as ’90s, early’00s rino squish that is far too concerned about the opinions at the DC cocktail parties and whether the credentialed elites say mean things about him. That doesn’t make him a lefty. It does make him largely the wrong person for the job of Chief Justice at this moment. His insistence that SCOTUS follow ordinary procedures/pace in the face of very extraordinary circumstances with rampant Judge shopping to thwart the Executive (and the People who elected him) with dozens of lawfare filings seeking TRO and injunctions is doing the opposite of his goal. The People are losing faith in judiciary due to what many see as a District Judges acting as political activists.
And his desire to have a consensus court will make the court worthless.
Indeed. If he’s willing to join a lefty opinion to get a 5/4 majority to keep the status quo instead of joining the more center/right Justices to achieve the same 5/4 split the other way out of a desire to have 6/3 or 7/2 opinions he is imposing political judgement re what he believes about public perception of the Judiciary instead of making ruling on the case in front of him.
Pretty soon a Traffic court judge will be running the country
Calling Judge Roy Bean
Calling the citizenry making use of a certain Amendment…
This is who Roberts has always been.
Now that we have proof of who he parties with, he has nothing to lose
Probably a sexual pervert too! explanation for having to adopt his children, couldn’t stand having sex with a straight woman
She’s along for the ride I guess
He has always given me the creeps
You’re getting carried away here. He’s a squish but charging sexual perversion is uncalled for.
This has very little to do with the merits of the case under discussion, but I have often wondered what happened culturally to mandate that every photo of every politician, judge, panhandler, or other reprobate features the subject of the photo as smiling.
What the hell is so funny?
If that was a picture of Oliver Wendell Holmes, he would be glaring at the camera.
The exposure times for some of those pictures was so long a scowl or at best a neutral facial expression was the easiest to hold.
That being said, Holmes was an imposing figure.
Paging Justice Roberts.
Paging Chief Justice Roberts.
Chief Justice Roberts Please go find your testicular fortitude.
It’s not fortitude.
He’s a leftist. Always has been. He just tries to lie and play-act being a ‘moderate’ to safeguard his precious ‘legitimacy’.
Who knows what he is. There has been plenty of speculation that the democrats have sufficient dirt on him to blackmail him. Is that true or is he a leftist? Both? Neither?
according to news reports, he engaged in human trafficking when illegally adopting his two children
Really??? Sounds ridiculous.
His tenure will not be well regarded because he seems to lack leadership or consistent principles with actions that seem guided by politics over law.
Roberts has been the most disapointing SCOTUS pick in decades.
Unfortunately, he’s not even the most disappointing pick by a guy named Bush. That honor falls to David Souter, picked by old man Bush. Roberts is arguably (if also slightly) more reliably conservative than another GOP nominee Kennedy, a Reagan pick. Stevens was another horrible pick (Ford). It’s a tossup between Souter and Stevens as the worst picks. They were both very reliable progressive justices, not ideologically diverse from Kagan today.
O’Conner was also a Reagan nominee, and she was terrible.
Yup, Souter was an atrocious pick, and even Bush admitted nominating Souter was one of his biggest mistakes as President.
But the biggest GOP SCOTUS airballs of the post-FDR era were Blackmun (Nixon), Warren (Eisenhower), and Brennan (Eisenhower).
Roberts seems to be part of a deep state cabal, according to Scott Adams’s report from Mike Benz
https://youtu.be/Bvvwl0R7BTA?t=3329
Orange Harvey should be able to do whatever he wants. After all he’s a selfless patriot whose only concern is helping America. LAFFRIOT!!
And he’s soooo smart . DOUBLE LAFFRIOT>
Nobody reads your posts any more. You are wasting your time. Bye.
What, are you six years old?
FFS you exude incompetence and childishness with every comment.
I only respond to you because I treat you like the infantile bitch you are.
Mom says “Come upstairs and eat your Lucky Charms”.
Maybe Roberts has simply been too long in DC. Maybe he’s simply come to accept the one-note conformity of a company town.
That much centralized government bureaucracy must skewer the very atmosphere towards constant government expansion. It doesn’t matter what an individual’s principles are, experioence in the bureauracracy will develop a self-interest in expansion – just as self-interest in Congress favors consolidating power. And the Justices live and work in this toxic environment.
A solution may be to spread the bureaucracy throughout the country, and maybe isolating the Supreme Court geographically. Not sure how else to combat the conformity.
All I see with ever 5-4 decision is how close we are with a 4-5 swap because we don’t have Constitution judges and so close to have Cultural Marxism Judges.
With each passing day, Roberts seems to be hell bent on validating the notion that he’s utterly compromised.
These TRO’s without bond essentially decide the case before trial in an Alice in Wonderland type scenario on the scantest of evidence and argument imaginable. Even if the Government wins after a trial, the Plaintiffs will have received the money and it will be unrecoverable. Justice Kagan’s claim that the Supreme Court has been hasty rings hollow when one considers the lightning speed with which these district court judges have issued these injunctions that often operate just like stare decisis of a Supreme Court decision binding the entire nation not just the parties to the litigation. A district court judge should not have the power of a majority of the Supreme Court. That calls for a hasty rebuke not a languid wait and see approach.
You would think it would bother the Supreme Court that every rando district judge in the country has more power than they do. How can this country function when 670 judges have to agree on every tiny thing for anything to move forward or change or be implemented…. Meanwhile Roberts signals that this is just fine and he will support this increasing chaos
“It is beyond puzzling that a majority of Justices conceive of the Government’s application as an emergency. It is likewise baffling that anyone is persuaded that the equities favor the Government when the Government does not even argue that the lower courts erred in concluding that it likely behaved unlawfully. This application should have been denied for numerous obvious and independent reasons, and the Court does itself—and the legal process—no favors in deciding to grant it.”
This from a woman who doesn’t even know what she (a woman) is. Everything this cretin says can be dismissed out of hand.