We saw a flurry of activity this week from the Supreme Court, with rulings that employers and educational institutions should be aware of. Specifically, the Supreme Court ruled in the Trump Administrations’ favor on several of the Administration’s prerogatives, including funding of teacher grants and the Administration’s ability to remove probationary government employees.
In other news from the week, the saga over NLRB Member Wilcox’s position on the Board continued. And, the Department of Education, joined by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) continued its investigatory and enforcement actions related to Title IX with the creation of a new “Special Investigations Team.” Keep reading, below, for further information on the activity from the week and our team’s insights into what these developments mean.
The Week in Brief
- NLRB Member Wilcox Reinstated by En Banc DC Circuit, Then Removed Again;
- Supreme Court Ruled for Trump and Halted Stay on Cancelation of Teacher Grants;
- Department of Ed/DOJ Announced a “Special Investigations Team” for Title IX Investigations;
- ISBE and Other State Education Agencies Respond to Request for Title VI Certification.
Franczek Insights:
- NLRB Member Wilcox Reinstated by En Banc DC Circuit, Then Removed Again by the U.S. Supreme Court – by John Swinney
The saga over NLRB Member Gwynne Wilcox continued this last week in rapid succession. We have reported several times on Wilcox’s removal from the Board, which first occurred on January 28, 2025. Wilcox was eventually reinstated to her position on March 6, pursuant to an order from a judge for the District Court for the District of Columbia. However, as we reported in last week’s Week in Review, the Trump Administration appealed that decision. And, on March 28, 2025, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Trump Administration’s request for review, once again removing Wilcox and leaving the NLRB without a quorum.
Then, this past week, on April 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, sitting as a full panel, reversed the March 28 holding and yet again reinstated Wilcox to her position on the Board. However, the Trump Administration immediately appealed this holding to the United States Supreme Court. And, only two days later, on April 9, 2025, the Supreme Court issued an administrative stay of the full D.C. Circuit’s order, which temporarily upholds the Administration’s removal of Wilcox until the Supreme Court can issue a full decision on the matter.
The Supreme Court has now granted Wilcox until April 15 to respond to the Administration’s request for Supreme Court review of her removal. In the meantime, Wilcox is once again off the Board, and the Board is left without a three-member quorum. As we have reported during previous removals, the lack of a quorum means that the NLRB once again does not have the requisite number of Members to issue decisions or new regulations. We will monitor the Supreme Court’s actions related to Member Wilcox and will continue to provide updates as this matter develops further.
- Supreme Court Rules for Trump and halts stay on cancelation of Teacher Grants – by Reva G. Ghadge
Among the U.S. Supreme Court’s issued rulings this week were two notable decisions in favor of the Trump administration: one on federal funding provided to school districts for professional development of teachers and college faculty members, and one on the administration’s power to remove probationary government employees. Both rulings were based on procedural arguments, not the merits of the underlying claims. Nonetheless, both cases provided useful information to understand when the high court may overturn lower court injunctions and under what circumstances, even as they wait for the merits to be determined separately.
Department of Education v. California
On March 10, 2025, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking the Trump administration from freezing millions in federal funding to school districts, colleges, and universities. These grants were to be used primarily for the training and education of teachers and college faculty members. On April 4, 2025, the Supreme Court overturned the district court’s ruling and allowed the administration to move forward with the cancellation of grants. In its opinion, the Court stated the district court’s TRO (which typically are not appealable) acted more like a preliminary injunction (which is appealable). The Court also explained the Government was likely to succeed in showing the district court lacked jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) to order the payment of the relevant grants. Instead, the Court wrote, jurisdiction for this matter likely lies with the Court of Federal Claims, which is the body responsible for hearing lawsuits over Federal contracts. Lack of jurisdiction coupled with the Government’s persuasive argument they were unlikely to recover the grant funds once paid while the plaintiffs would regain any money wrongly withheld led to the Supreme Court staying the TRO. Practically the Court’s ruling means the government may continue to withhold funds while the underlying claims, which are (1) whether the District Court of Massachusetts has jurisdiction over the case, and (2) whether the government breached its obligations under the APA when it took arbitrary and capricious actions not in accordance with law, are reviewed by the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
OPM, et al. v. AGFE, et al.
Four days later, on April 8, 2025, the Court issued an order staying a preliminary injunction granted by the District Court for the Northern District of California halting the firing of probationary employees en masse. The district court ruled for a number of non-profit agencies who sued claiming irreparable harm which may result from the immediate impairment of public services. In a very short opinion, the Supreme Court stated the non-profit groups suing for the preliminary injunction had not adequately pled standing to request the injunction. The Court declined to address the claims of other plaintiffs who were not part of the preliminary injunction request. Although the injunction granted in California was stayed, the District Court in Maryland issued a Temporary Restraining Order which stayed the removal and required the reinstatement of any probationary employees. The Maryland TRO has not been addressed and the Government remains estopped from removing probationary employees in nineteen states plus Washington D.C, although it is under review by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Both cases before the Supreme Court were decided on procedural grounds: lack of jurisdiction and lack of standing. In neither did the Supreme Court choose to substantively comment on the underlying merits of the claims. The Court’s choice to avoid the merits of the arguments signals their intent to allow cases to make their way through the lower courts in the manner required by the legal system, and that they are likely not going to weigh in on substantive legal issues unless properly brought before the court. While the initial outcomes of proceedings before the Supreme Court may not be desired ones for federal probationary employees or for districts and higher education institutions relying on federal funding for professional development opportunities, there remains opportunity to advocate for their positions as the underlying merits are decided by district and appellate courts.
- U.S. Departments of Education and Justice Establish New Title IX Special Investigations Team – by Jared Costanzo
The US Department of Education (“DOE”) and US Department of Justice (“DOJ”) recently announced the establishment of a new Title IX Special Investigations Team (“SIT”). According to the announcement, the Title IX SIT was created to “ensure timely, consistent resolutions to protect students, and especially female athletes, from the pernicious effects of gender ideology in school programs and activities.”
The Title IX SIT will consist of investigators and attorneys from the DOE’s Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) and Office of General Counsel, the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, staff from the DOE’s Student Privacy Policy Office, and a Federal Student Aid enforcement investigator. The announcement notes that the Title IX SIT was created in light of President Trump’s recent Executive Order on “Keeping Men out of Women’s Sports”, which we wrote about here, and the Executive Order on “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism”, which we also wrote about here.
The announcement indicates that the Title IX SIT will streamline Title IX investigations by combining investigators from DOE and DOJ, resulting in a “rapid resolution investigation process,” which could lead to “ultimate DOJ enforcement.” US Secretary of Education McMahon noted that the Title IX SIT “will ensure rapid and consistent investigations” focusing on men “compet[ing] in women’s sports and us[ing] women’s intimate facilities.” US Attorney General Pam Bondi also noted that the Title IX SIT will enable the DOJ and DOE to “take comprehensive action when women’s sports or spaces are threatened and use the full power of the law to remedy any violation of women’s civil rights.”
Educational institutions can expect heightened scrutiny on Title IX enforcement action. Educational institutions should therefore ensure that their Title IX policies are up to date and that personnel are trained in accordance with the Title IX regulations. The announcement makes clear that the Trump Administration will continue to use Title IX to target educational institutions that it believes is violating Executive Orders regarding female athletics.
We previously wrote about the Administration’s targeting of the Maine Department of Education, available here. In that alert, we noted that the DOE had opened an investigation into the Maine Department of Education under Title IX based on allegations that it allows “male athletes to compete in girls’ interscholastic athletics” and “denied female athletes female-only intimate facilities.” In response, the State of Maine filed a lawsuit against the US Department of Agriculture and the US Secretary of Agriculture, seeking injunctive relief after the Department of Agriculture froze federal funds allocated to Maine that are intended to feed schoolchildren. The State of Maine’s lawsuit alleges that the Secretary of Agriculture took unilateral action to freeze funding “without following any of the statutory and regulatory requirements that must be complied with when terminating federal funds based on alleged violations of Title IX.”
We will likely see additional Title IX enforcement action from the Trump Administration in the coming months. If you have any questions about the Title IX SIT, please contact any Franczek attorney.
- ISBE and Other State Education Agencies Respond to Request for Title VI Certification – by Hailey Golds
As we previously reported, on April 3, 2025, the U.S. Department of Education issued letters to state commissioners overseeing K-12 state education agencies (“SEAs”) requiring that they certify their state’s compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin. The letter directs each SEA to collect the same certification responses from each of their local education agencies (“LEAs”) and to return a single certification to the DOE within 10 days of the press release. The certification requires SEAs and LEAs to acknowledge that failure to comply with Title VI as set forth in the certification – including with any unlawful diversity, equity and inclusion practices, or the responsibilities outlined in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard – may result in the loss of federal funding.
Originally, the letter directed SEAs to respond by Friday, April 11, 2025, but that deadline was extended to April 24, 2025.
On Wednesday, April 9, Illinois State Superintendent of Education Tony Sanders sent a response to the Department of Education outlining the Illinois State Board of Education’s (“ISBE”) position with respect to the request for certification. The letter notes that ISBE submits regular applications certifying compliance with all required assurances for federal programs, including the requirement to comply with Title VI.
The letter also raises concerns that the request for certification seeks to “change the terms and conditions” of funding for ISBE without adhering to the required rulemaking procedures under the U.S. Education Code. Sanders notes that similar requests to certify compliance with the administration’s directives relating to diversity, equity, and inclusion have been enjoined by federal courts. Sanders’ letter concluded by asking the Department of Education to provide the legal authority permitting the Department to require an SEA to obtain certifications from LEAs, report on their signature status, and propose enforcement plans for approval, and an assurance that ISBE will continue to comply with Title VI, its implementing regulations, and applicable Supreme Court cases. Illinois joins other states, including New York and Wisconsin, in pushing back against the request.
The National Education Association has already asked a federal court to enjoin the Department of Education from enforcing the requirement for certification, with a hearing scheduled for April 17, 2025. We will continue to keep you updated as new developments arise.
