Cases & Developments

U.S. Department of Education (the Department) announced a new partnership with the Department of Labor (DOL) to create an integrated federal education and workforce system. Pursuant to an interagency agreement, DOL will now take on a greater role in administering the adult education and family literacy programs funded under Title II of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) and career and technical education (CTE) programs. The partnership, which is intended to be consistent with Executive Order 14278 “Preparing Americans for High-Paying Skilled Trade Jobs of the Future” will result in DOL providing day-to-day administration of the department’s Perkins and WIOA Title II programs alongside the larger suite of workforce programs DOL already administers.” The DOL plans to facilitate streamlined services for states and grantees and allow for a unified state plan portal as well as consistent timelines for submitting state plans for WIOA and Perkins. A fact sheet was published with this notice. 

Order Granting Petitioners’ Application for Stay. Respondents—comprised of multiple states, school districts, and labor organizations—filed suit against Linda McMahon, Secretary of Education; President Donald J. Trump; and the Department of Education (the Department), challenging the administration’s attempt to dismantle the Department through a large-scale reduction in force (RIF). Respondents claimed that the RIF unlawfully sought to eliminate a statutorily created federal agency, exceeding the President’s constitutional authority and violating the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. The U.S. Supreme Court, by way of an emergency application, granted petitioners’ application for stay following a preliminary injunction issued by the federal district court of Massachusetts that ordered the reinstatement of terminated employees, and a denial by the First Circuit of the administration’s motion for a stay. In a one-paragraph unsigned order, the Court permitted petitioners to proceed with the planned RIF at the Department while the appeal remains pending. 

Opinion and Order Denying Defendant-Appellants’ Motion for Stay. Plaintiffs, State of New York, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, State of Hawai’i, 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 along with 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 were granted a preliminary injunction on May 22, 2025, which enjoined the Department of Education (the Department) and the Secretary from: (1) carrying out its March 11, 2025, Reduction in Force (RIF); (2) implementing the Executive Order “Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities;” (3) implementing the March 21, 2025, directive to transfer management of federal student loans and special education functions out of the Department; and also, required that defendants reinstate federal employees whose employment was terminated or eliminated on or after January 20, 2025, as part of the March 11, RIF. Following the preliminary injunction, defendants moved for a stay pending appeal to the First Circuit. In denying defendants’ motion for stay, the court found that defendants failed to cite authority in their argument that the Executive Branch would suffer irreparable harm by being required to carry out Congress’s duly enacted statutes, framing the omission as “concerning.” The Court further found that defendants failed to make a strong showing that they are likely to succeed in their appeal as to the injunctive relief at issue insofar as that relief is predicated on the plaintiffs’ Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claims. The Court reasoned that in addition to being unable to meet the threshold for a motion to stay, defendants further failed to show that the plaintiffs would not be substantially injured by a stay of the preliminary injunction during the pendency of the appeal, nor did they demonstrate that the public’s interest lies in permitting a major federal department to be disabled from performing its statutorily assigned functions. Based upon the reasoning of its Opinion, the Court ordered denial of defendants’ motion for a stay. 

Memorandum and Order on Consolidated Plaintiffs’ Motions for Preliminary Injunction. In a set of consolidated cases, plaintiffs, State of New York, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, State of Hawai’i, 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 along with 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) is unlawful and harms millions of students, school districts, and educators across the Nation. Finding in favor of plaintiffs, the Court reasoned that “a department without enough employees to perform statutorily mandated functions is not a department at all. This court cannot be asked to cover its eyes while the Department’s employees are continuously fired, and units are transferred out until the Department becomes a shell of itself.” In granting plaintiffs preliminary relief, agency defendants were enjoined from carrying out the March 11 reduction-in-force announcement, implementing President Trump’s March 20 Executive Order, and from carrying out the President’s March 21, 2025 directive to transfer management of federal student loans and special education functions out of the Department; agency defendants were also ordered to reinstate federal employees whose employment was terminated or otherwise eliminated on or after January 20, 2025, as part of the reduction in-force, in order to restore the Department to the status quo such that it is able to carry out its statutory functions.