The ruling came in a lawsuit brought by states.
A federal judge on May 6 blocked the U.S. Department of Education from canceling more than $1 billion in funding that was allocated to help address the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on primary schools and students.
U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos entered a preliminary injunction that prohibits the Department of Education from enforcing its recission of extensions for the funding that had been granted in January by the prior administration.
Education officials also cannot modify the previously-approved extensions without giving the states at least 14 days notice, the judge said.
Congress allocated funds to states to distribute to schools to address problems stemming from the pandemic. The more than $276 billion was distributed to states through an education stabilization fund. Under laws passed by Congress, states had until Sept. 30, 2024, to designate the money, and until Jan. 28, 2025, to access funds to achieve the designations.
States could ask for extensions for the latter deadline, and a number did so. The Department of Education granted extensions to at least 16 states, and Washington, enabling them to access the money through March 2026. Education Secretary Linda McMahon informed the states in March that the extensions were being rescinded because additional review had determined they were “not justified” in part because the pandemic is over, although the states could reapply for extensions.
The plaintiffs—New York, Oregon, 13 other states, Washington, and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro—said that they were facing being cut off from more than $1 billion if a preliminary injunction was not entered.
In a memorandum in support of their motion for an injunction, they said that the Department of Education’s shift with regards to the extension requests was arbitrary and capricious, in violation of federal law. The change “assumes incorrectly that all [the] appropriations were intended only for use during the pandemic” and “lacks any reasoned explanation,” they wrote.
Lawyers for the government said in response that the actions were not arbitrary and capricious.
“The Department’s actions are not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law because recission of the prior extension was within the Department’s discretion and did not conflict with the relevant appropriations statutes,” they said in a brief.
