1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Suits seeking continued US funding will likely…

U.S. Supreme Court

Suits seeking continued US funding will likely be routed to Court of Federal Claims after SCOTUS decision, law prof says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 7, 2025, 11:42 am CDT

A decision on Friday by the U.S. Supreme Court in a challenge to an education-grant freeze will likely redirect many other lawsuits regarding Trump administration spending decisions to the Court of Federal Claims, according to a law professor.

The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision allowed the Trump administration to freeze $65 million in education-related grants while a suit filed by eight states is litigated.

The Supreme Court found that the government was likely to succeed in its argument that a district court lacked jurisdiction to order the payment of money under the Administrative Procedure Act. The law waives government immunity but not for court orders to enforce a contractual obligation to pay money along the lines of the order by U.S. District Judge Myong J. Joun of the District of Massachusetts, the Supreme Court said.

Instead, the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction to hear such suits, the high court said.

Writing at the Volokh Conspiracy, Josh Blackman, a professor at the South Texas College of Law in Houston, said the ruling “should quickly knock out many other ‘spending’ cases and redirect them to the Court of Federal Claims. This is a court most people have never heard of but will soon become very important.”

The Supreme Court’s decision stayed a March 10 temporary restraining order issued by Joun, report Politico, Reuters, Howe on the Court, the Washington Post and the New York Times.

Chief Justice John Roberts dissented from the decision but did not issue or join a dissent. The Supreme Court’s three liberal justices also dissented.

The Trump administration had canceled the grants because they included diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. The states that sued are California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York and Wisconsin.

Joun’s order had required the government to pay past-due grant obligations and to continue paying the obligations as they accrue. The judge based the decision on a finding that the challengers were likely to succeed on their claim that the freeze was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Supreme Court disagreed with that finding.

Generally, TROs cannot be appealed, but the order issued by Joun was more akin to a preliminary injunction, the majority said.

In a dissent, Justice Elena Kagan said the general rule is that Administrative Procedure Act suits go to federal district courts, even when a remedial order may result in the disbursement of funds.

“So the court’s reasoning is at the least underdeveloped, and very possibly wrong,” she said.

Kagan also criticized the majority for making a decision based on the government’s emergency application.

“The risk of error increases when this court decides cases—as here—with barebones briefing, no argument and scarce time for reflection,” she wrote.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a separate dissent, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

“It is beyond puzzling that a majority of justices conceive of the government’s application as an emergency,” Jackson wrote. “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.”

The decision is Department of Education v. California.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

The Judiciary has strengthened its IT defenses against cyberattacks, a meeting of the Judicial Conference of the United States was told on Tuesday. But the threat is growing in scale and sophistication, requiring even greater vigilance against attacks from individuals and unfriendly nations.

Court of Appeals Judge Michael Y. Scudder, chair of the Conference’s Committee on Information Technology, also warned of potential threats to Judiciary IT systems in the coming months as part of a general update on cybersecurity during the Judicial Conference’s twice-annual meeting, held today at the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The cyber risk we face is especially acute at this very moment—in the heart of this election season,” Scudder said. “Foreign adversaries see the election as an opportunity not just to spread misinformation, but, more broadly, to sow distrust in the workings of the American government of which we are a part.”

The Judiciary elevated its focus on cybersecurity after a major attack in late 2020 affected many federal institutions. Key elements of the Judiciary’s response have been documented in annual reports from the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO). They include:

• Implementing Zero Trust Architecture: Zero trust architecture requires users to continuously verify their identity before being granted access to an organization’s network, systems, and data.
• Expansion of Multifactor Authentication: Multifactor authentication requires users to confirm their identities before gaining access to a network, system, or data. This makes it more difficult for adversaries to gain access to critical Judiciary resources even if passwords are compromised. 
• Maximizing the use of government-furnished equipment while limiting the risks associated with use of personally owned devices to access non-public Judiciary networks and systems.

The AO also appointed a Chief Information Officer in April 2023 to address system-wide IT issues and strategies.

Despite this progress, Scudder said, concerns remain as cyberattackers become more sophisticated. He urged judges to remain focused on IT security, and emphasized the importance of Congress prioritizing funding for the Judiciary’s cybersecurity needs.

“Now is not the time for one ounce of complacency,” Scudder told the Conference. “We have to keep making progress on our major projects; we have to find ways to meet our goals faster, by working within cyber-relevant timeframes, not ordinary government timelines; and we have to stay unified, with the courts and AO working together.”

Scudder thanked federal judges for their broad support of IT security.

“Perhaps above all else, our culture has changed,” Scudder said. “Overwhelming numbers of judges now see IT as an essential part of nearly everything we do. They understand the importance of investing in modernization and cybersecurity, and doing so at an enterprise level.”

Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr., secretary of the Judicial Conference and director of the AO, also briefed the Conference on several developments affecting the Judiciary.

“This was a successful JCUS in many ways,” Conrad said. “I’m proud of the hard work the Conference’s committees have performed on matters procedural and substantive to aid the Judiciary’s efforts to pursue excellence in the administration of justice.”

Workplace Conduct

As part of the briefing, Conrad outlined the numerous steps the Judiciary has taken in recent years in response to a call for action by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., to ensure an exemplary workplace and to protect Judiciary employees from misconduct.

These include multiple channels to report workplace concerns and to receive confidential guidance from trained professionals at the local, circuit, and national levels. In response to requests from law clerks and other employees, these include informal resolutions as well as formal complaint procedures.

Under policies approved by the Judicial Conference, there is a specific and enforceable prohibition on abusive conduct, and judges have an obligation to report credible allegations of abusive behavior.  Training and programmatic efforts have been greatly expanded.

“The Judiciary has gone to great lengths to provide an exemplary workplace,” Conrad said. “Can more be done?  Of course.  The Judiciary has continued to assess its progress and evaluate areas for further refinement. Workplace conduct remains a top Judiciary priority.”

About the Judicial Conference

The 26-member Judicial Conference (pdf) is the policy-making body for the federal court system. By statute, the Chief Justice of the United States serves as its presiding officer and its members are the chief judges of the 13 courts of appeals, a district judge from each of the 12 geographic circuits, and the chief judge of the Court of International Trade. The Conference meets twice a year to consider administrative and policy issues affecting the court system, and to make recommendations to Congress concerning legislation involving the Judicial Branch.