The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Sept. 17 vacated an internal Department of Education directive issued in February 2025 that instructed staff to review and terminate Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) and Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED) grants containing diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programming.
What the court decided
The court granted summary judgment to eight states — California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Wisconsin — finding the department’s directive arbitrary and capricious and inconsistent with federal law. The judge declared the directive unlawful and set it aside in its entirety.
“Eliminating Discrimination and Fraud in Department Grant Awards,”
The February 5, 2025 internal instruction, titled Eliminating Discrimination and Fraud in Department Grant Awards, had ordered department personnel to review new, pending and awarded grants and to terminate those the agency deemed to involve DEI‑related programming. The court found multiple legal defects in how the department sought to implement that policy.
Legal grounds and implications
In its ruling, the court concluded the directive was flawed on procedural and substantive grounds. Specifically, the court identified that the directive:
- was issued without required notice‑and‑comment procedures under the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA),
- exceeded the department’s authority under the statutes that govern TQP and SEED grants, and
- violated the Uniform Guidance limitations on post‑award grant terminations,
- and was otherwise arbitrary and capricious in its application.
The decision joins a series of federal rulings that have blocked administrative actions aimed at restricting or rescinding DEI‑related programming in federally funded education initiatives. For school districts, teacher‑training organisations and universities that receive federal grant dollars, the ruling restores the status quo for the affected TQP and SEED awards and narrows the department’s ability to unilaterally end grants after award without following statutory processes.
Who brought the case and what it covers
Eight states filed suit against the Education Department challenging the February 2025 directive. The programmes at issue — Teacher Quality Partnership and Supporting Effective Educator Development — fund partnerships and professional development designed to improve educator preparation and effectiveness. The court’s vacatur means the department cannot rely on the directive as a basis for blanket reviews or terminations of grants that include DEI elements.
| Plaintiff states | Key legal findings referenced |
|---|---|
| California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Wisconsin | Arbitrary and capricious; violation of governing grant statutes; failure to follow GEPA notice‑and‑comment; Uniform Guidance limits on post‑award terminations |
Practical consequences for schools and grant holders
For education leaders and administrators, the ruling signals that federal agencies must follow statutory procedures before rescinding or substantially altering grant awards. Practically, recipients of TQP and SEED grants that include DEI components should expect their grants to remain in effect unless the department pursues individual, statutorily authorised actions supported by proper procedures and findings.
The decision also increases legal uncertainty for future administratively directed grant reviews of DEI‑related programming, reinforcing that policy changes of this magnitude generally require formal rulemaking or clear congressional authorization rather than internal agency memoranda.
School boards, teacher‑training consortia and institutions that rely on federal grant funding should monitor further developments and agency guidance, and consult legal counsel if their awards are flagged for review. The ruling does not resolve underlying policy debates about DEI in education, but it does affirm limits on executive branch action in this area pending any legislative changes.
