Trump asks Supreme Court for OK to cut teacher-training money as part of anti-DEI push

News

Trump asks Supreme Court for OK to cut teacher-training money as part of anti-DEI push

2025-03-27 01:07 Last Updated At：01:11

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to allow it to cut hundreds of millions of dollars for teacher training.

A federal judge in Boston temporarily blocked the cuts, finding they were already affecting training programs aimed at addressing a nationwide teacher shortage. An appeals court turned away a plea from the administration to allow them to resume.

The government asked the high court to step in, arguing that the order is one of several issued by federal judges around the country wrongly forcing it to keep paying out millions in grant money.

The Supreme Court called for a response to the appeal by Friday.

It comes after U.S. District Judge Myong Joun issued a temporary restraining order sought by eight Democratic-led states that argued the cuts were likely driven by efforts from President Donald Trump’s administration to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

The Republican president signed an executive order calling for the dismantling of the Education Department, and his administration has started overhauling much of its work, including cutting dozens of contracts it dismissed as “woke” and wasteful.

“So long as there is no prompt appellate review of these orders, there is no end in sight for district-court fiscal micromanagement," acting Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris wrote.

The Justice Department has filed four other emergency appeals of court rulings that blocked administration actions amid a wave of lawsuits that have slowed, at least for now, aspects of Trump's agenda.

The Supreme Court has yet to rule on an appeal asking to narrow court orders that have imposed a nationwide hold on Trump’s desire to restrict birthright citizenship. An appeal to halt an order requiring the rehiring of thousands of federal workers is also pending.

The justices previously rejected a bid to freeze nearly $2 billion in foreign aid and did not immediately allow Trump’s firing to proceed of the head of a federal watchdog agency. A later ruling from a lower court, though, did force Office of Special Counsel head Hampton Dellinger from his job.

The two education programs at issue — the Teacher Quality Partnership and Supporting Effective Educator Development — provide more than $600 million in grants for teacher preparation programs, often in subject areas such as math, science and special education, the states have argued. They said data has shown the programs had led to increased teacher retention rates and ensured that educators remain in the profession beyond five years.

The administration halted the programs without notice in February. The administration argues the states could at least temporarily draw on their own funds to continue funding the programs.

Joun, who was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden, found that the cancellations probably violated a federal law that requires a clear explanation for such cost-cutting moves.

The appellate panel that rejected the administration’s request for a stay also was made up of judges nominated by Democratic presidents.

California is leading the lawsuit and is joined by Massachusetts, New Jersey, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York and Wisconsin.

The order the administration wants from the high court would allow the cuts to go forward while the legal fight over them plays out.

This story been corrected to reflect that there are four other emergency appeals filed by the Trump administration at the Supreme Court, not three.

Elon Musk hands out $1 million payments after Wisconsin Supreme Court declines request to stop him

2025-03-31 11:40 Last Updated At：11:51

GREEN BAY, Wis. (AP) — Elon Musk gave out $1 million checks on Sunday to two Wisconsin voters, declaring them spokespeople for his political group, ahead of a Wisconsin Supreme Court election that the tech billionaire cast as critical to President Donald Trump's agenda and “the future of civilization.”

“It’s a super big deal,” he told a roughly 2,000-person crowd in Green Bay on Sunday night, taking the stage in a yellow cheesehead hat. “I’m not phoning it in. I’m here in person.”

Musk and groups he supports have spent more than $20 million to help conservative favorite Brad Schimel in Tuesday's race, which will determine the ideological makeup of a court likely to decide key issues in a perennial battleground state. Musk has increasingly become the center of the contest, with liberal favorite Susan Crawford and her allies protesting Musk and what they say is the influence he wants to have on the court.

“I think this will be important for the future of civilization,” he said. “It’s that’s significant.”

He noted that the state high court may well take up redistricting of congressional districts, which could ultimately affect which party controls the U.S. House.

“And if the (Wisconsin) Supreme Court is able to redraw the districts, they will gerrymander the district and deprive Wisconsin of two seats on the Republican side,” Musk said. “Then they will try to stop all the government reforms we are getting done for you, the American people.”

A unanimous state Supreme Court on Sunday refused to hear a last-minute attempt by the state's Democratic attorney general to stop Musk from handing over the checks to two voters, a ruling that came just minutes before the planned start of the rally.

Two lower courts had already rejected the legal challenge by Democrat Josh Kaul, who argues that Musk's offer violates a state law. “Wisconsin law prohibits offering anything of value to induce anyone to vote,” Kaul argued in his filing. “Yet, Elon Musk did just that.”

But the state Supreme Court, which is currently controlled 4-3 by liberal justices, declined to take the case as an original action. The court gave no rationale for its decision.

Kaul had no immediate comment on the court's order.

Musk’s attorneys argued in filings with the court that Musk was exercising his free speech rights with the giveaways and any attempt to restrict that would violate both the Wisconsin and U.S. constitutions.

The payments are “intended to generate a grassroots movement in opposition to activist judges, not to expressly advocate for or against any candidate,” Musk’s attorneys argued in court filings.

Musk’s political action committee used a nearly identical tactic before the presidential election last year, offering to pay $1 million a day to voters in Wisconsin and six other battleground states who signed a petition supporting the First and Second amendments. A judge in Pennsylvania said prosecutors failed to show the effort was an illegal lottery and allowed it to continue through Election Day.

Liberals currently hold a 4-3 majority on the court. All four liberal justices have endorsed Dane County Judge Susan Crawford, the Democratic-backed candidate.

Musk’s attorneys, about four hours before the rally was to begin, asked that two liberal justices who have campaigned for Crawford — Jill Karofsky and Rebecca Dallet — recuse themselves from the case. His attorneys argued their work for Crawford creates “the specter of inappropriate bias.” If they did recuse, that would leave the court with a 3-2 conservative majority.

Both justices rejected the request and said they would spell out their reasons why at a later date.

One of the court's conservative justices has endorsed Schimel, who wore a “Make America Great Again" hat while campaigning Sunday.

Schimel said in a national television interview that he does not control “any of the spending from any outside group, whether it’s Elon Musk or anyone else” and that all Trump asked was whether he would “reject activist judges" and follow the law.

“That’s exactly what I’ve committed to anybody, whether it’s President Trump, Elon Musk or any donors and donors or supporters or voters in Wisconsin. That’s my commitment,” Schimel told “Fox News Sunday.”

The contest has shattered national spending records for a judicial election, with more than $81 million in spending.

It comes as Wisconsin’s highest court is expected to rule on abortion rights, congressional redistricting, union power and voting rules that could affect the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential election in the state.

Associated Press writer Gary Fields in Washington contributed to this report.