Cases & Developments

Executive Order: “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.” This Order seeks to “restore the Smithsonian Institution to its rightful place as a symbol of inspiration and American greatness.” The Order directs the Vice President, in consultation with the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and the Special Assistant to the President for Senior Associate Staff Secretary to work with the Smithsonian Board of Regents with respect to the Smithsonian Institution and its museums, education and research centers, and the National Zoo, including by seeking to remove improper ideology from such properties and recommend to the President any additional actions necessary to fully effectuate such policies. The Order further directs that the Vice President and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to work with Congress to ensure that future appropriations to the Smithsonian Institute “(i) prohibit expenditure on exhibits or programs that degrade shared American values, divide Americans based on race, or promote programs or ideologies inconsistent with Federal law and policy; and (ii) celebrate the achievements of women in the American Women’s History Museum and do not recognize men as women in any respect in the Museum.” Finally, the Order requires that the Secretary of the Interior shall (i) determine whether, since January 1, 2020, public monuments, memorials, statues, markers, or similar properties within the Department of the Interior’s jurisdiction have been removed or changed to perpetuate a false reconstruction of American history, inappropriately minimize the value of certain historical events or figures, or include any other improper partisan ideology; (ii) take action to reinstate the pre-existing monuments, memorials, statues, markers, or similar properties, as appropriate; and (iii) take action to ensure that all public monuments, memorials, statues, markers, or similar properties within the Department of the Interior’s jurisdiction do not contain descriptions, depictions, or other content that inappropriately disparage Americans past or living, and instead focus on the greatness of the achievements and progress of the American people or, with respect to natural features, the beauty, abundance, and grandeur of the American landscape. The White House also published a Fact Sheet to aid in the implementation of its Order.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiffs, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), NAACP South Carolina State Conference, NAACP Florence Branch, NAACP Texas State Conference, NAACP Lubbock Branch, National Education Association, Prince George’s County Educators’ Association, AFSCME Council 3, and several minor children allege that the Trump Administration’s recent actions to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) are unconstitutional and violate Congress’s directives in creating the Department and assigning it specific duties and appropriations. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that the March 20th Executive Order directing Secretary McMahon to dismantle the Department, and her actions to dismantle the Department violate the Take Care Clause. Plaintiffs additionally allege that Secretary McMahon’s impoundment of the Department’s congressionally appropriated funds infringes Congress’s exclusive power over the federal purse and thus, violates the appropriations and Spending Clauses. Plaintiffs allege that that Secretary McMahon’s dismantling of the Department, reflected in the March 20th Executive Order, exceeds Executive Branch authority, and impermissibly abrogates power that is reserved to Congress, in violation of the separation of powers. Plaintiffs further allege that the court should hold defendants’ dismantling of the Department to be arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because defendants “failed to account for the devastating consequences of eliminating the Department and its programs for millions of American students and families; have not provided any non-pretextual explanation for their dismantling of the Department or reduction of staff previously determined to be necessary to the Department’s statutory responsibilities; and have failed to account for the substantial reliance interests of students, families, educators, local communities, borrowers and states in the continued functioning of the Department.” Finally, plaintiffs allege that defendants’ dismantling of the Department is in excess of their delegated powers and ultra vires, as no statute, constitutional provision, or other source of law authorizes defendants to dismantle the Department in violation of the Department of Education Organization Act (DEOA) and the statutes the Department administers. Plaintiffs request that the Court declare the March 20th Executive Order unlawful and set it aside; issue a preliminary and permanent injunction barring defendants from continuing their dismantling of the Department and implementing the March 20th Executive Order; and declare unlawful and set aside defendants’ actions to dismantle the Department as unconstitutional, arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity, in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right, and ultra vires.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiffs, Somerville Public Schools, Easthampton Public Schools, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), AFT Massachusetts, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, the American Association of University Professors, and the Service Employees International Union allege that President Trump’s March 20th Executive Order “Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities” as well as the March 11, 2025, reduction in force (RIF) to the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) are unlawful and harm millions of students, school districts, and educators across the nation. Plaintiffs allege that the mass removal of individuals who work for the Department will result in the Department being unable to perform its statutorily mandated duties. Plaintiffs allege that defendants’ actions to close the Department by way of mass termination, the March 20th Executive Order, the plan to move portions of the Department to other agencies, and any other related steps, exceed presidential and executive authority and usurp legislative authority conferred by the Constitution, in violation of the separation of powers. Further, plaintiffs allege that defendants’ actions violate the Take Care Clause because they are directly contrary to the duly enacted statutes establishing the Department, offices and programs within the Department, and the Department’s duties, and such actions are directly contrary to the enacted statutes appropriating funds to the Department and directing the Department to distribute such funds. Plaintiffs allege that defendants lack authority to dismantle the Department, in whole or in part, are acting outside of defendants’ authority to act and have exceeded the scope of their constitutional and statutory authority, and further are in violation of the separation of powers. Plaintiffs allege that by mass firing the essential staff required for effectively administering the IDEA, which requires defendants to ensure that children with disabilities have access to educational opportunities and ensure that the rights of those children and their parents are protected, defendants “decimate[]” the Department’s ability to perform those essential functions, and thus are contrary to the IDEA. Plaintiffs allege that mass firing of essential staff also impacts the Department’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR), and hobbles their ability to investigate, protect, and enforce students’ civil rights protections. Finally, plaintiffs allege that defendants’ actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by way of being arbitrary and capricious as defendants failed to consider the reliance interests of students, families, schools, states, colleges and universities, and other entities that depend on the effective operations of the Department; failed to consider the impact on institutional knowledge, technical expertise, continuity of services, and other potential harms when seeking to transfer Department functions to other agencies, and further exacerbating problems with OCR’s backlog by terminating over half of the OCR staff. Plaintiffs request that the court issue a declaratory judgment that President Trump’s Executive Order directing the dismantlement of the Department is unlawful because it violates the Constitution; issue a declaratory judgment that the March 11th reduction in force and other implementations of President Trump’s directive to close the Department by Secretary McMahon and the Department of Education are unlawful because they violate the Constitution and Administrative Procedure Act; declare unlawful and set aside the March 11th reduction in force, as well as implementation of the Executive Order’s directive as contrary to the Constitution, not in accordance with law, in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right, and arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion; issue preliminary and permanent relief, including a stay, barring defendants, from continuing to carry out the March 11th reduction in force; issue preliminary relief, including a stay, barring defendants from further implementing the directive to dismantle the Department. 

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiffs, State of New York, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, State of Hawaii, State of California, State of Colorado, State of Arizona, State of Delaware, State of Connecticut, District of Columbia, State of Illinois, State of Maine, State of Maryland, Attorney General for the People of Michigan, State of Minnesota, State of Nevada, State of New Jersey, State of Oregon, State of Rhode Island, State of Vermont, State of Washington, and the State of Wisconsin allege that the Executive Branch is unilaterally and unlawfully “gutting” the U.S. Department of Education (the Department). Plaintiffs allege that the mass termination of Department employees violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and both the mass termination and implementation of the March 21st Executive Order, “Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities” are unconstitutional and ultra vires. Plaintiffs allege that due to the mass terminations, the lack of access to information, guidance, and up-to-date statistics that allow plaintiffs’ education systems to work effectively is the sort of injury that cannot be remedied by later relief. Further, they assert that cuts in staff in the Federal Student Aid office places the student loan, grant and work-study programs at risk. Finally, plaintiffs allege that they will suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction because defendants’ actions jeopardize critical statutory functions essential to the administration of plaintiffs’ educational programs. In addition to their complaint, plaintiffs submitted a motion for a preliminary injunction.

Executive Order: “Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities.” This Executive Order states that “the Federal education bureaucracy is not working. Closure of the Department of Education would drastically improve program implementation in higher education.” The Order directs the Secretary of Education to take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education (the Department); ensure that the allocation of any Federal Department funds is subject to rigorous compliance with Federal law and Administration policy, including the requirement that any program or activity receiving Federal assistance terminate illegal discrimination under the label of “DEI” or similar terms and programs promoting gender ideology. On March 20, the White House also published a Fact Sheet to aid in the implementation of its Order