Judge orders feds to resume paying teacher-training grants; Boston among affected cities

A Boston federal judge yesterday ordered what now passes for a government in Washington to pay teacher-training grants that had been previously approved and funded by Congress - including money whose loss forced the layoff of three full-time teacher trainers at UMass Boston.

Whether the Tantrum Thrower in Chief and his toadies will obey the order, of course, now becomes an open question.

In his ruling granting a temporary restraining order for Massachusetts and seven other states as their case continues, US District Court Judge Myong Joun ruled a Musk Administration order immediately cutting two grant programs - including one under which UMass Boston was providing training for bilingual educators in Boston Public Schools - was, among other things, "arbitrary and capricious" and so in violation of a federal law that requires federal diktats to meet at least certain minimum standards showing why they were doing what they were doing.

Referring to a letter sent to grant recipients that basically said they were being denied money on account of woke, Joun wrote:

I see no reasoned explanation articulated for the Department's action here. First, the Termination Letter lists several theoretical bases for the grant terminations - stating the grants fund programs that, for example, "promote or take part in DEI initiatives" or "are not free from fraud, abuse, or duplication" or "otherwise fail to serve the best interests of the United States" - but fails to identify which of these bases applies here. This does not reach the level of a reasoned explanation; indeed it amounts to no explanation at all. Second, even accepting any one of these bases as justification for the agency action, such as discrimination related to DEI initiatives, the Termination Letter is arbitrary and capricious because its statements are only conclusory. ...

In the absence of any reasoning, rationale, or justification for the termination of the grants, the Department’s action is arbitrary and capricious.

Joun cited a similar case, with a similar order, issued by another Boston judge involving federal scientific research grants and said that like the plaintiffs in that case - who also include Massachusetts - the plaintiffs in his case showed a strong likelihood of ultimate victory in their case, based not only on the order being legally nonsensical but because they had made a strong case the funding cuts would cause "irreparable harm" and go against the public interest.