Leadership Center for Attorney General Studies

Education profoundly influences our lives. Every student deserves access to quality education and a positive school environment. But that access may increasingly depend on whether students live in a state whose attorney general is willing to fight for their rights and stand up against federal abuse.¹ This is because the Supreme Court recently ruled that federal district courts do not have the general authority to issue nationwide injunctions to block illegal policies. Although states that do not join lawsuits challenging illegal federal actions sometimes benefit from the work of states that do sue, often, a state must join a lawsuit to protect its residents from harm.

As a new school year begins, this issue brief highlights the crucial role attorneys general have taken on in protecting access to quality education in their states. The work of state attorneys general has restored, at least temporarily, tens of billions of dollars in education funding promised by the federal government, helping mitigate the harm of illegal federal cuts on the well-being of their resident children. This brief examines the six lawsuits filed by state attorneys general challenging the Department of Education’s actions in the second Trump administration.

Although state attorneys general may not win every case they file, they have fought to ensure that students in their states have access to the education funding promised to them.

• In one lawsuit, the plaintiff states regained access to over $1.1 billion in COVID-19 relief funds used by schools.
• In another case, attorneys general sued the Trump administration after it conditioned access to at least $13.8 billion in federal education funding in their states.
• This summer, in yet another case, state attorneys general sued the Secretary of Education over withholding $6.8 billion in federal funding. Following the lawsuit and political pushback, the Department of Education released the funds to all states.

State attorneys general have also sued the federal government over its termination of grant programs operating in their states, as well as for dismantling the Department of Education.

• One case dealt with the termination of over $600 million in nationwide grant funding for K-12 teacher preparation programs.
• A second concerned the Trump administration’s cancellation of over $580 million in funding for school-based mental health professionals.
• A final case sought to protect the jobs of the nearly 2,000 federal education workers impacted by a massive reduction in force.

Lawsuit I. COVID-19 Relief Funding

New York v. Department of Education (S.D.N.Y.)²

Following a May 2025 preliminary injunction in a lawsuit filed by 17 states, attorneys general restored access to over $1.1 billion in remaining COVID-19 relief funds for schools in their states. After a series of federal court decisions, at the end of June 2025, the Department of Education restored access to the relief funds for all states. A similar amount, at the very least, was likely at stake for the non-plaintiff states.

 

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress enacted numerous disaster relief laws that appropriated funds to respond to the nationwide health crisis and economic devastation. One such effort was the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF). ESF comprises four primary emergency relief funds: one for public schools, one for higher education institutions, one for private schools, and one for governors’ offices. Across these investments, the historic Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER), with $190 billion, constituted the most significant infusion of federal emergency aid funding to K-12 schools. In previous funding rounds, the over 16,000 recipient school districts spent ESSER funds on tutoring and accelerated learning; summer enrichment, after-school programs, and school day extensions; curriculum and instruction; and additional school personnel.³

Initially, school districts had to “obligate,” or commit to use the money for specific purposes, by September 2024. But by early 2024, the Department of Education was encouraging states to seek extensions to access these funds. Based on these extensions, local school districts understood they could draw down awarded funding through March 2026. But, on March 28, 2025, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon notified states that, as of that day, the Department of Education rescinded the extension.⁴

So, on April 10, 2025, New York Attorney General Letitia James led a coalition of 16 state attorneys general and one governor in suing the Trump administration for suddenly rescinding previously granted extensions for spending COVID-19 relief funds. In May and again in June 2025, federal courts granted preliminary injunctions blocking the extension rescission in the plaintiff states.⁵ Table I lists the remaining ESF funding in 15 of the 17 plaintiff states, as reported in the complaint. State attorneys general had restored access to at least $1.1 billion in funding for their schools. Public data is not readily available, but a similar amount was likely at stake in non-plaintiff states.

Following an appeals court denial, on June 26, 2025, the Department of Education reversed its March 28 decision and reinstated the extension to all states.⁶ By filing this lawsuit, participating state attorneys general have saved billions of dollars that local school districts across the country can continue to spend to support their students.

Table I: Remaining COVID-19 Relief Funding

Note: Total unliquidated ES funding as of March 28, 2025. The amounts for Nevada and Arizona were not available as of April 10, 2025. Public data is not readily available for non- plaintiff states.

Source: New York v. Department of Education (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-02990 (April 10, 2025), Document 1,¶ 47.

Lawsuit II. Federal Anti-Poverty and Special Education Funding

New York v. Department of Education (D. Mass.)⁷

In April 2025, 19 states sued the Trump administration over its conditioning of access to federal education funding on the acceptance of anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies. At least $13 billion was at stake for the plaintiff states – nearly $8 billion for schools with high-poverty populations and $6 billion to help cover the cost of special education.

 

Each year, the Department of Education allocates billions of dollars in congressionally mandated financial support to states for schools. There is a wide range of programs and services, but the two most significant sources of federal funds are Title I and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) funding.

• Through Title I, Part A, the Department of Education distributes over $18 billion in supplemental financial assistance to schools with children from low-income families. Three in five public schools are eligible for Title I.⁸
• Through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Education Department also disburses over $15 billion in IDEA funding, which helps cover the costs of special education. Roughly 15% of all public-school children, about 7.5 million children, receive special education services tailored to their needs.⁹

Following a series of executive orders aimed at eliminating DEI programs and practices in schools, on April 3, 2025, the Trump administration ordered an unprecedented requirement that the billions in federal education funding to the states would be conditional on ending DEI.¹⁰ The undefined directive was not only problematic in its aim but also impossible to comply with as written. The threatening language created fear of enforcement actions, even for a broad range of lawful initiatives that contribute to fairer schools and workplaces, for instance.

So, on April 25, 2025, New York Attorney General Letitia James, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, and Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison co-led a coalition of 19 states in suing the Department of Education to ensure access to the federal funding for the plaintiff states. Since then, a district court judge issued a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking the directive.¹¹

The $13.8 billion cited in the lawsuit is an underestimation of terminated funds because the DEI condition applied to more than just Title I and IDEA funding.¹² To better gauge the potential impact by state, Table II lists the total amount of federal education funding each state receives, excluding federal student aid, as well as the amount for Title I and IDEA.¹³ For plaintiffs, the amount is $36 billion.

Table IIA. Title I, IDEA, and Total Education Department Funding (Plaintiff States)

Note: The total includes all Department of Education funding, except for the Federal Direct Student Loan Program, so it includes both elementary/secondary as well as post-secondary funding.

Source: Department of Education, “State Tables by Program, FY 2024-26 President’s Budget,” (June 13, 2025).

Table IIB. Title I, IDEA, and Total Education Department Funding (Non-Plaintiff States)

Note: The total includes all Department of Education funding, except for the Federal Direct Student Loan Program, so it includes both elementary/secondary as well as post-secondary funding.

Source: Department of Education, “State Tables by Program, FY 2024-26 President’s Budget,” (June 13, 2025).

Lawsuit III. Federal Afterschool, Special Education, and Migrant Program Funding

California v. McMahon (D.R.I.)¹⁴

In July 2025, 25 states sued the Trump administration over withholding $6.8 billion in nationwide federal education funding. By the end of the month, the Department of Education released the funds to all states.

 

On March 15, 2025, President Trump signed a continuing resolution, providing funding for the federal government through September 30, 2025. Annual practice was that, after Congress appropriated the funds, the Education Department would release funds by July 1, allowing state agencies and school districts to budget and begin spending for the upcoming year.¹⁵

But, earlier this summer, the Trump administration withheld more than $6.2 billion for the K-12 system (and another $600 million for adult literacy and education). Instead of releasing the $6.8 billion in federal funding on July 1, 2025, on June 30, with only one day’s notice, the Department of Education notified state agencies that it would not release the money.¹⁶ The withholding of funds, called “impoundment,” threatened essential services for millions.

• The withheld funds included $2.1 billion to support the training, mentoring, and retention of effective teachers, with a focus on low-income districts.
• Another $1.4 billion in withheld funding was for art, music, and physical education; mental health services; and technology.
• $1.3 billion was to have gone to before- and after-school programs.
• Smaller amounts were intended for helping children learning English ($819 million) and supporting children of migrant farmworkers ($376 million).
• Another $600 million was intended for adult literacy and education.

On July 14, 2025, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, and Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha co-led a coalition of 23 state attorneys general and two governors in suing the Trump administration for withholding approximately 14% of all federal funding for elementary and secondary education nationwide.¹⁷ Four days after the attorneys general filed suit, the Trump administration announced that it would release the $1.3 billion in funding for before- and after- school learning centers. A week after that, the Trump administration committed to releasing the remaining nearly $5 billion to public schools.¹⁸ Table III lists the total amount of impacted funding for five of the six programs, where data were readily available.

Table III: Total Withheld Funding for Five of the Six Impacted Programs

Note: Total impacted funding is the sum of withheld money from five of the six programs. State-level data was not available for Migrant Education Program (Title I, Part C).

Source: Analysis of data from the Department of Education; “Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (Title II, Part A),” 84.367A (July 10, 2025); “English Language Acquisition State Grants; Title III, Part A,” 84.365A (July 23, 2025); “Student Support and Academic Enrichment Program (Title IV, Part A),” 84.424A (July 14, 2025); ED, “Nita M. Lowey 21st Century Community Learning Centers (Title IV, Part B),” 4.287 (July 18, 2025); “AEFLA State Grants,” (accessed August 11, 2025).

Lawsuit IV. Teacher Preparation Grants

California v. Department of Education (D. Mass)¹⁹

In March 2025, eight states sued the Trump administration over its termination of $684 million in nationwide grant funding for K-12 teacher preparation programs. The estimated loss to plaintiff states was $179 million; $242 million for the 22 non-plaintiff states.

 

The shortage of teachers in the U.S. only worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2024, more than 400,000 teacher positions were either unfilled or filled by teachers who were not fully certified for their assignments, approximately 1 in 8 of all teaching positions nationally.²⁰ Teacher shortages are more prevalent in Western states, in rural, urban, and high-poverty communities, and in specific subjects, including foreign languages, physical science, and special education.²¹ Due to the shortage of qualified teachers, many communities rely on long-term substitutes, hire people on emergency credentials, or increase class sizes.

In response to these shortages, Congress created two teacher programs that operated for over two decades, educating, placing, and supporting new teachers in hard-to-staff schools and subjects. Many higher education institutions receive these federal grants. When Trump took office, the Department of Education was funding 107 teaching preparation grants across 31 states. Less than one month into the new administration, the Department of Education eliminated the two programs as part of its broader effort to eliminate DEI initiatives across government.

Over 100 education organizations documented the statewide impacts that eliminating these programs would have on destabilizing local school systems and worsening the national teacher shortage. One example was Louisiana, which lost at least $23 million to build a pipeline of quality teachers for high-need schools. One grant recruited local talent to serve in rural schools. Another focused on implementing an apprentice-based degree and teacher certification model. The third grant would have brought in more than 550 teachers to New Orleans. ²²

On March 6, 2025, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, and New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin co-led a coalition of 8 attorneys general in challenging the Trump administration’s termination of grant funding for K- 12 teacher preparation programs. A district court judge granted a temporary restraining order, but the Supreme Court decided the next month to allow the Education Department to proceed with the cuts.²³ While the state attorneys general experienced a setback, the case is ongoing.

Table IV lists the total number of active grants, the total funding associated with those grants, and the estimated funding lost. Of the $684 million in grants, over 60%, an estimated $422 million, had not been paid. The eight plaintiff states, with 41 terminated grantees, are fighting for an estimated $180 million. The 22 non-plaintiff states, on the other hand, lost $242 million across 66 grants.

Table IV: Terminated Teacher Preparation Grants

Note: Total funding combines the Teacher Quality Partnership and Supporting Effective Educator Development grant programs.

Source: Analysis of Department of Education data; “Teacher Quality Partnership Program,” ALN 84.336S (July 9, 2025); “Supporting Effective Educator Development Grant Program,” (July 14, 2025).

Lawsuit V. School-Based Mental Health Service Professional Grants

Washington v. Department of Education (W.D. Wash.)²⁴

At the end of June 2025, 16 states sued the Trump administration after the Department of Education cancelled at least 219 of the 332 total grants it was funding for school-based mental health services. Collectively, those grantees lost over $580 million, including over $370 million in plaintiff states.

 

American children are struggling with their mental health. Many are not getting the help they need. In 2023, of the 1 in 5 young people ages 12 to 17 who experienced at least one major depressive episode in the past year, more than half did not receive mental health treatment.²⁵

School-based mental health services are one of the most effective tools to ensure children get the support they need to succeed. School-based mental health services are associated with better attendance and reduced absenteeism, improved emotional outcomes, better behavioral outcomes, improved academic performance, more engagement in educational activities, and a healthier school climate.²⁶ The recommended ratios are one school counselor and one school social worker for every 250 students, and one school psychologist for every 500 students. Yet, in practice, nationally, the ratio is more than twice the recommended level.

In response to mass shootings like those in Parkland, Florida, Congress established two federal programs that support the workforce development of school-based mental health providers. After the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, in 2022, Congress dramatically expanded these efforts with an additional $1 billion in supplemental funding—the effort aimed to prepare and place 14,000 mental health professionals in schools.²⁷

But in April 2025, the Department of Education cancelled at least 219 grants, according to an analysis by Inseparable. The grantees collectively lost over $580 million. As part of its anti-DEI campaign, the Education Department claimed that, by diversifying the pool of psychologists, for example, schools were misusing their funds, and the grants ought to be rebid.

On June 30, 2025, Washington Attorney General Nick Brown led a coalition of 16 state attorneys general in filing a lawsuit against the Department of Education. Table V lists the estimated loss for each state. Since the Department of Education did not release a list of cancelled grantees, Inseparable has compiled its own list. These numbers represent the minimum number of grantees that received non-continuation letters.

Table V. Cancelled Mental Health Grants

Note: The estimated loss is from a known subset of grantees of two programs: the Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program and the School-Based Mental Health Services Program. The Department of Education has never provided a list of grantees that received a non-continuation letter. Therefore, the estimated loss is a minimum, given for states where available data provides a calculable loss. Non-renewal of expiring grants is not included in this loss calculation. States with either no canceled grants or with only expiring grants do not appear in this chart.

Source: Analysis provided by the nonprofit mental health advocacy organization, Inseparable.

Lawsuit VI. Education Department Reduction-in-Force

New York v. McMahon (D. Mass)²⁸

In March 2025, 21 states challenged the Trump administration’s dismantling of the Department of Education through a massive reduction in force (RIF), which cut the federal agency’s workforce nearly in half from 4,133 workers to 2,183. A district court initially blocked the layoffs, but the Supreme Court later reversed the order, allowing the layoffs to proceed.

 

As demonstrated in the summary of previous lawsuits, the Department of Education allocates billions of dollars in congressionally mandated funding for a wide range of programs. Created after the Civil War as part of Reconstruction, the original intent of the predecessor agency to the Department of Education was to ensure civil rights.²⁹ The establishment of the department as a Cabinet-level agency in 1980 emphasized the federal government’s commitment to, and national prioritization of, education.³⁰ But, in March 2025, the Department of Education announced that, as part of its “final mission,” it would initiate a reduction in force, laying off nearly half its workforce. The RIF cut the federal agency’s workforce in half, from 4,133 who served in the department at the start of Trump’s term, to 2,183.³¹

So, state attorneys general tried to save the Department of Education itself. On March 13, 2025, New York Attorney General Letitia James, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, Hawai’i Attorney General Anne Lopez, and Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell co-led a coalition of 21 attorneys general in filing a lawsuit to stop the dismantling of the Department of Education. The attorneys general fought to preserve agency personnel, who are now no longer at the Education Department after the Supreme Court granted a stay of a preliminary injunction that had blocked the RIF.³²

This loss jeopardizes the department’s ability to provide oversight protections for students with disabilities and has other negative impacts, like weakening the identification and education of students experiencing homelessness.³³ The Supreme Court’s ruling is temporary; the case will next be argued on the merits before the First Circuit Court.

Conclusion

Whether the Department of Education exists in its current state or not, programs mandated by Congress must continue. State attorneys general have filed six lawsuits challenging the Trump administration’s illegal restrictions on or termination of tens of billions of congressionally mandated funds for education. In many instances, whether education funding and resources will flow to a state depends on whether its attorney general has joined the fight to stop the Trump administration’s cuts to those resources. While in some instances, children will benefit from the work of their neighboring state attorneys general, residents without a participating state attorney general stand to suffer from underfunded and understaffed schools as they return to the classroom this fall.

---

¹ Leadership Center for Attorney General Studies, “The Impact of CASA v. Trump: State Attorneys General Are Now the Most Powerful Defenders of Rights and the Rule of Law,” (July 2, 2025).

² New York v. Department of Education, 1:25-02990 ((S.D.N.Y. April 10, 2025), Document 1, pp. 1-55.

³ Weadé James & Paige Shoemaker DeMio, “Lessons From K-12 Education Relief Aid to Improve Federally Funded Programs,” Center for American Progress (October 18, 2024).

⁴ Linda McMahon, Letter from Secretary of Education to State Chiefs of Education, (March 28, 2025).

⁵ New York v. Department of Education, 1:25-cv-02990-ER (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2025), Document 77, p. 1-2.

⁶ Linda McMahon, “Dear Colleague,” Department of Education (June 26, 2025).

⁷ New York v. Department of Education, 1:25-cv-11116, Document 1 (D. Mass April 25, 2025), pp. 1-55.

⁸ National Center for Education Statistics, “Fast Facts: Title I,” (accessed August 11, 2025).

⁹ National Center for Education Statistics, “Students with Disabilities,” Condition of Education (May 2024).

¹⁰ Department of Education, “Dear Colleague: Reminder of Legal Obligations Undertaken in Exchange for Receiving Federal Financial Assistance,” (April 3, 2025).

¹¹ New York v. Department of Education, 1:25-cv-02990-ER, Document 6, (D. Mass June 3, 2025), pp. 1-3.

¹² New York v. Department of Education, 1:25-cv-11116 (D. Mass April 25, 2025), ¶ 2, fn. 1.

¹³ Melanie Hanson, “U.S. Public Education Spending Statistics,” Education Data Initiative (February 8, 2025).

¹⁴ California v. McMahon, 1:25-cv-00329 ((D.R.I. July 14, 2025).

¹⁵ Michael A. DiNapoli Jr. & Michael Griffith, “States Face Uncertainty as an Estimated $6.2 Billion in K-12 Funding Remains Unreleased: Here’s the Fiscal Impact by State,” Learning Policy Institute (updated July 1, 2025).

¹⁶ Sarah Mervosh & Michael C. Bender, “Trump Withholds Nearly $7 Billion for Schools, With Little Explanation,” The New York Times (July 1, 2025).

¹⁷ Sarah Mervosh, “24 States Sue Trump Over $6.8 Billion Withheld From Education,” New York Times (July 14, 2025).

¹⁸ Justine McDaniel & Laura Meckler, “Trump Administration Releases Billions it Withheld From Schools,” The Washington Post (July 25, 2025).

¹⁹ California v. Department of Education, 1:25-cv-10548, Document 1, (D. Mass March 6, 2025), pp. 1-54.

²⁰ Ryan Saunders & Amy Skinner, “Addressing Teacher Shortages,” Learning Policy Institute (March 27, 2025).

²¹ GAO, “Education Should Assess Its Efforts to Address Teacher Shortages,” GAO-23-10580 (October 27, 2022).

²² AACTE, “Letter from 104 Organizations to Congressional Leaders,” (February 27, 2025).

²³ Department of Education v. California, 145 S. Ct. 966 (2025).

²⁴ Washington v. Department of Education 2:25-cv-01228 (W.D. Wash. June 30, 2025), Document 1, pp. 1-48.

²⁵ Maddy Reinert, Danielle Fritze, & Theresa Nguyen, The State of Mental Health in America 2024 Mental Health America (July 2024).

²⁶ Healthy Schools Campaign, Mental Health America, & Attendance Works, The Impact of School Mental Health Services on Reducing Chronic Absenteeism, (May 14, 2024).

²⁷ Cory Turner, “Education Department Stops $1 Billion in Funding for School Mental Health,” NPR Weekend Edition Sunday (May 1, 2025).

²⁸ New York v. McMahon, 1:25-cv-10601 (D. Mass. March 13, 2025).

²⁹ Gabrielle Healy & Robin Young, “How the Department of Education Came Into Existence,” Oregon Public Broadcasting (February 6, 2025).

³⁰ Southern Poverty Law Center, “Understanding the Role and Responsibilities of the Department of Education,” Learning for Justice (accessed July 31, 2025).

³¹ Department of Education, “U.S. Department of Education Initiates Reduction in Force,” (March 11, 2025).

³² Department of Education, “Secretary McMahon Statement on Supreme Court Victory for Future of American Education,” (July 14, 2025).

³³ Weadé James & Veronica Goodman, “Department of Education Staff Cuts Will Harm America’s Children and Schools,” Center for American Progress (March 14, 2025).