Federal Lawsuit aims to Halt Trump Governance’s Education Department Overhaul
Washington, D.C. – A coalition of advocacy groups has filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration, alleging an unconstitutional dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education. The lawsuit, filed in federal court, challenges a series of executive actions that plaintiffs argue are effectively shuttering the department without Congressional approval.
The legal challenge comes in response to a series of moves by the administration, beginning in early 2025. These actions include significant staff reductions, the termination of $1.5 billion in Congressionally-approved contracts and grants, and an Executive Order signed March 20, 2024, directing secretary Linda McMahon to “pursue all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return education authority to the States.” The following day, President Trump signaled plans to transfer the higher education student loan portfolio to the small Business Administration and disability-related programs to the Department of Health and Human Services.
Plaintiffs argue these actions, taken together, constitute an illegal de facto dismantling of the Department through executive power. The lawsuit asserts this violates the Constitution, arguing that “the Constitution gives power over ‘the establishment of offices [and] the determination of their functions and jurisdiction’ to Congress—not to the President or any officer working under him.” Because Congress created the Department, the suit contends only Congress can legally eliminate it, its offices, or transfer its responsibilities to other agencies.
The Department of Education, while not directly managing local schools, plays a vital role in ensuring equitable access to education across the nation. Established to bridge gaps in educational opportunity, the Department provides crucial funding and support to students, especially those from vulnerable populations. These efforts include enforcing civil rights laws, supporting students with disabilities, promoting equal educational opportunity, bolstering the educator workforce, and administering Federal Student Aid programs like Pell Grants that make college attainable for working-class Americans.
Critics of the administration’s actions warn of dire consequences for vulnerable students, notably those from low-income families, English learners, homeless students, and students in rural areas. These students rely heavily on the Department’s resources. The lawsuit also points to potential job losses for over 400,000 educators. Eliminating the Department, the suit argues, undermines Congressional intent in how federal education funding is spent, threatens support for 7.5 million students with disabilities, and leaves millions of students susceptible to discrimination. It further raises concerns about diminished access to Pell Grants, disruptions to student loan repayments, and increased vulnerability to fraudulent practices by unscrupulous higher education institutions.
The lawsuit claims the Administration’s actions exceed executive authority and violate the Administrative Procedure Act. It seeks an immediate court order to halt the Department’s dismantling.
Statements Reflect Concerns and Resolve
Parents and educators are expressing deep concern over the potential impact of the Department’s dismantling.
Mara Greengrass, a Maryland mother and plaintiff in the lawsuit, emphasized the importance of the Department’s support for students with disabilities: “As a parent of a child with disabilities who has an Individual Education Programme (IEP), I am deeply troubled by the severe cuts the Trump Administration has made to the Department of Education. Funding for special education and the Department’s oversight have been crucial in ensuring my son receives the quality education he—and every child in this country—deserves.”
National Education Association President Becky Pringle voiced strong opposition, framing the administration’s actions as a betrayal of students. “Nothing is more important than the success of students. America’s educators and parents won’t be silent as Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and Linda McMahon try to steal opportunities from our students, our families, and our communities to pay for tax cuts for billionaires. Gutting the Department of Education will hurt all students by sending class sizes soaring,cutting job training programs,making higher education more out of reach,taking away special education services for students with disabilities,and gutting student civil rights protections.Parents, educators, and community leaders know this will widen the gaps in education, which is why we will do everything in our power to protect our students and their futures,” Pringle stated.
Derrick Johnson, President and CEO of the NAACP, highlighted the potential for long-term damage to opportunities for disadvantaged communities. “Education is power.By firing half of the workforce at the department of Education, Trump is not only seeking to dismantle an agency — he is deliberately destroying the pathway many Americans have to a better life,” said Johnson. “The forceful elimination of thousands of essential workers will harm the most vulnerable in our communities. The NAACP and our partners are equipped with the necessary legal measures to prevent this unlawful attack on our children’s future.”
Patrick Moran,president of AFSCME Council 3,emphasized the importance of the Department’s funding for local education efforts. “Congress created the Department of Education, and Congress controls its future — not billionaires marylanders never voted for,” Moran said. “This illegal move to bypass our elected representatives would be devastating to our state’s public schools. Department of Education funding supports AFSCME Council 3 members in their essential work every day. It helps bus drivers get students in rural areas to school on time,ensures cafeteria workers can deliver consistent meals to students in low-income areas,keeps custodial workers on staff to ensure public schools are safe environments,supports disability and English as a second language school services,and more. Without this funding, we lose essential school workers — and our most vulnerable students will pay the price.”
Robert Kim, Education Law Center Executive Director, pointed to the administration’s apparent misunderstanding of the Department’s crucial functions. “The Trump Administration’s effort to dismantle the Department of Education is not only illegal; it inflicts great harm on students, schools, and communities across the country,” said Kim. “The Administration’s assertion that critical federal funding and support for schools and students will somehow continue as normal even after shuttering the Department reveals a dangerous lack of understanding of the Department’s role to provide funding for and implement programs for our most underserved student populations, ensure equal access and opportunity, and enforce civil rights in our nation’s schools. We cannot afford to let the Trump Administration throw our public schools into chaos.”
Student Defense President Aaron Ament reinforced the legal challenges facing the administration’s plans. “Donald Trump’s own Secretary of Education has acknowledged they can’t legally shut down the Department of Education without Congress,” said Ament. “Yet that is, for all intents and purposes, exactly what they are doing. It’s a brazen violation of the law that will upend the lives of countless students and families.”
Implications and Next Steps
This lawsuit raises essential questions about the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches in the United States. If successful, it could set a precedent limiting presidential authority over Congressionally-established agencies. Conversely, a ruling in favor of the administration could embolden future presidents to pursue similar restructuring efforts without Congressional approval.The case is likely to face a lengthy legal battle,potentially reaching the Supreme Court. In the meantime,the future of the Department of Education hangs in the balance,with significant implications for students,educators,and the overall landscape of American education. Real-world impacts could be felt in areas like access to special education services, the availability of federal student loans, and the enforcement of civil rights protections in schools across the country.The outcome of this legal challenge will undoubtedly shape the future of education policy in the United States for years to come.
How might a ruling in favor of the Trump management in this case potentially weaken the role of congress in overseeing the executive branch?
Interview: Legal Expert on Lawsuit Challenging Trump’s Education Department Overhaul
Archyde News Editor: Welcome, everyone, to Archyde News. Today, we’re joined by Dr.Emily Carter, a leading legal scholar specializing in constitutional law and the separation of powers. Dr. Carter, thank you for being here.
Dr. Carter: Thank you for having me.
Archyde News Editor: We’re here to discuss the recent federal lawsuit challenging the trump administration’s actions regarding the U.S. Department of Education. Can you give us a brief overview of the core legal arguments?
Dr. Carter: Certainly. The lawsuit argues that the administration is effectively dismantling the Department of Education through a series of executive actions, including staff reductions, contract terminations, and the planned transfer of key functions like student loans and special education services. The central argument is that these actions usurp Congress’s constitutional authority. The Constitution grants congress the power to establish federal offices and determine their functions. The plaintiffs contend that only Congress can legally eliminate a federal department or transfer its responsibilities.
Archyde News Editor: The lawsuit mentions the Administrative Procedure Act as well. How does that factor into the legal challenge?
Dr. Carter: The Administrative Procedure Act, or APA, governs how federal agencies operate. The lawsuit claims the administration’s actions violate the APA, essentially arguing the administration has not followed proper procedures in its approach to shutting down the department and transferring its existing contracts. The APA is a crucial element in ensuring government agencies act transparently and within the bounds of the law.
Archyde News Editor: The implications for students, notably those from vulnerable populations, seem important. What are the potential real-world impacts if the Department of Education is dismantled?
dr. Carter: The potential impacts are extensive. The Department plays a crucial role in ensuring equitable access to education, especially for students from low-income families, students with disabilities, and other vulnerable groups. without the Department’s funding and oversight, we could see disruptions to special education services, reduced access to Pell Grants, and weaker enforcement of civil rights protections in schools. Additionally, it would negatively affect the student loan portfolio the department currently manages.
archyde News Editor: The administration plans to move the student loan portfolio to the Small Business Administration and disability-related programs to the Department of Health and Human Services. Is this an adequate replacement strategy?
Dr. Carter: It’s questionable.Both the SBA and HHS have diffrent primary focuses and expertise. Transferring such significant responsibilities to these agencies could potentially lead to a lack of focus and resources for student support. It’s difficult to see how these agencies could fully replicate the Department of Education’s current functions and expertise for student education without a massive restructuring effort.
Archyde News Editor: One of the arguments made is that the President is overstepping his authority. What are the constitutional implications of a ruling in favor of or against the Trump administration in this case?
Dr.Carter: A ruling against the administration could set a precedent, limiting presidential authority to dismantle Congressionally-created agencies.This would further reinforce the separation of powers. Conversely, a ruling in favor of the administration could embolden future presidents to pursue similar actions, potentially weakening the role of Congress in overseeing the executive branch. The case could ultimately reach the Supreme Court and redefine executive and legislative branch power.
Archyde News Editor: This case could have far-reaching consequences for the balance of powers in the United States. What do you believe will be the biggest issue coming out of this legal battle?
Dr. Carter: I believe the most significant issue is the precedent this case sets regarding the scope of executive power. Will the president have the ability to decide on their own to shut down or restructure branches of the government? Or, ultimately, will the Supreme court uphold the original intent of the Constitution and require Congressional approval?
Archyde News Editor: Thank you, Dr. Carter, for your insightful analysis. It’s clear this lawsuit has the potential to rewrite some of the fundamentals of American education policy. We appreciate you sharing your expertise with our readers.
Dr. Carter: My pleasure.
