A federal judge has mandated that the Trump administration must continue funding grants for school mental health services, which amounts to millions of dollars. This decision came after the Department of Education announced plans earlier this year to cease grant funding for numerous beneficiaries, with most cuts set to begin in December. However, in a 26-page ruling delivered by U.S. District Judge Kymberly Evanson, it was determined that the reduction would cause significant harm, supporting the claims of 16 states that challenged the move.

Judge Evanson highlighted the University of Buffalo as a specific example, explaining that ending the Mental Health Professional Demonstration Grant Program (MHSP) would result in the loss of ten internship placements. She emphasized that this would have a detrimental impact on students and rural communities in western New York. She noted that public universities in states like California, Colorado, and Connecticut also developed similar training initiatives, which would face immediate challenges such as the sudden termination of partnerships with state and local agencies, the loss of staff and graduate student roles, the mid-year cancellation of scholarships, and the halt of research projects, along with the immediate cessation of services currently offered to students through these grants.

The Seattle-based judge recounted that the grants were originally launched in 2018 during President Donald Trump’s initial term. She explained, “Acknowledging the widespread occurrence of violence and traumatic crises in schools, and the resulting negative impact on the educational environment, Congress allotted funds to the Department to foster learning environments where students feel secure, supported, and poised to learn.”

“This will cause significant harm to both students and rural communities in western New York,” Evanson wrote. “Other public universities in California, Colorado, Connecticut, [etc.] created similar training programs and describe similar immediate harms stemming from the abrupt end of partnerships with state and local agencies, loss of staff and graduate student employees, mid-year cancellation of scholarships and research projects, and the immediate loss of services currently being provided to students in Plaintiffs States via the Grants.”

As the Seattle-based judge recounts, the grants were first issued in 2018 during President Donald Trump’s first term. “Recognizing the prevalence of violence and traumatic crises in schools, and the resultant negative effect on the learning environment, Congress allocated appropriations to the Department to ‘support learning environments where students feel safe, supported, and ready to learn,’” she wrote.

After the spring 2022 school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, funding for the MHSP and School-Based Mental Health Services Grant Program (SBMH) was “dramatically increased,” under the Biden administration. But as Trump returned to office this past January with a vow to reduce government spending, many grant recipients saw their funding cut.

The increase in funding in 2022 was part of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, sponsored by then-Florida Sen. and now-Secretary of State Marco Rubio. However, the Education Department in April took aim at the Biden administration for awarding the grants, saying doing so violated “the letter or purpose of Federal civil rights law,” per NPR.

In their lawsuit, the 16 states argued that the grant cuts “did not comply” with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the federal statute governing agency behavior, and also violated the Constitution’s principle establishing a separation of powers between Congress and the executive branch.

The plaintiffs also maintained that none of them were given an individual reasoning for their grants being canceled, with Evanson saying that even the Trump administration acknowledges that “the decisions are generic and identical.” As a result, the states say they are “left guessing why the Grants were discontinued.”

The federal government has argued that it doesn’t need to provide further explanation, as it can decide at its discretion if it is “in the best interest of the federal government to do so.” The judge found this argument “not persuasive.”

She wrote that when courts review an agency decision, they inspect whether the agency “examined ‘the relevant data’ and articulated ‘a satisfactory explanation’ for [the] decision.” And she said in this case, “there is no evidence the Department considered any relevant data pertaining to the Grants at issue and it is undisputed that it provided no Grant-specific explanation of the application of the Department’s new ‘best interest’ criteria.”

Evanson granted the states’ request for a preliminary injunction, barring the Trump administration from effectuating the grant cancellations and ordering a status report within two days of the Monday filing. She noted that the order only applies to the relevant grantees in the 16 states that challenged the decision.