A federal judge has vacated the Education Department directive behind more than $600 million in teacher-training grant cuts, finding the policy unlawful under federal administrative law.

More than a year after the U.S. Department of Education terminated hundreds of millions of dollars in teacher-training grants, a federal court has struck down the directive used to carry out those cancellations.

On September 17, 2026, U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley of the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment to eight states challenging the Department's February 5, 2025 directive, Eliminating Discrimination and Fraud in Department Grant Awards.

The court concluded that the directive was arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with law under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Judge Kelley vacated and set aside the directive in its entirety.

The case centers on two major federal educator-development programs: the Teacher Quality Partnership program, commonly known as TQP, and the Supporting Effective Educator Development program, or SEED.

According to the federal court record, the Department terminated 104 of 109 TQP and SEED grants under the February 2025 directive.

When the Education Department publicly announced the cancellations in February 2025, it said the terminated grants represented more than $600 million in federal teacher-training funding.

There is an important limitation to the ruling.

The court invalidated the directive, but that does not automatically restore every previously terminated grant.

Bottom Line: The federal court struck down the Education Department directive used to terminate more than 100 teacher-training grants. The ruling prevents the Department from continuing to rely on that directive, but separate legal or administrative proceedings may still be necessary to recover specific previously terminated grant funds.

Editorial Note

This article examines a federal court ruling involving the U.S. Department of Education and eight states.

The court found that the February 2025 directive violated the Administrative Procedure Act.

That legal finding is separate from the broader political debate over diversity, equity, and inclusion policies in education.

The Education Department said when it announced the grant terminations in 2025 that it believed federal funds were supporting DEI-related and other programming it considered divisive.

The plaintiff states argued that the Department's directive conflicted with federal statutes, regulations, and administrative-law requirements governing the programs.

New To Education is not making an independent determination about the political merits of DEI policies.

This article focuses on the court's ruling, the federal programs involved, and the potential consequences for teachers, teacher candidates, universities, school districts, and students.

This article is provided for educational and informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.

What Happened

The dispute began in February 2025.

The Education Department issued an internal directive requiring personnel to review federal grants and terminate those considered inconsistent with the administration's policies concerning DEI initiatives.

The consequences came quickly.

The September 17 federal court decision states that within approximately two weeks, the Department terminated more than 90 percent of existing TQP and SEED grants.

By March 12, 2025, 104 of 109 grants had been terminated, including 40 grants located within the eight states participating in the lawsuit.

Those states were:

• California
• Massachusetts
• New Jersey
• Colorado
• Illinois
• Maryland
• New York
• Wisconsin

The states challenged the directive in federal court.

Their claims focused partly on whether the Education Department had complied with the Administrative Procedure Act and the federal laws governing TQP and SEED.

On September 17, Judge Kelley granted the states' motion for summary judgment on their APA claims and vacated the directive.

What the Court Actually Decided

The ruling is significant, but it should not be confused with a court order automatically restoring every dollar previously cancelled.

The court held that the February 2025 directive was:

• arbitrary and capricious
• contrary to federal law
• inconsistent with governing statutes and regulations
• unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act

The court therefore:

• granted the states' motion for summary judgment
• denied the federal government's cross-motion
• declared the directive unlawful
• vacated and set aside the directive in its entirety

That removes the February 2025 directive as a lawful basis for future agency action.

The court had previously determined, however, that it lacked jurisdiction under the Tucker Act over the states' challenges to the individual grant terminations themselves.

That means an institution seeking recovery of previously terminated federal funds may face a different legal process.

The distinction is important:

The policy was invalidated. The money was not automatically restored.

What Are TQP and SEED Grants?

The programs involved in the case are specifically designed to strengthen the education workforce.

Teacher Quality Partnership

The Teacher Quality Partnership program supports partnerships among universities, school districts, and other educational organizations.

Its purposes include:

• improving teacher preparation
• strengthening professional development
• supporting teacher-residency programs
• helping candidates meet certification requirements
• recruiting people into the teaching profession
• preparing teachers for high-need schools and shortage areas

The current Department of Education TQP program also supports registered teacher apprenticeships and other work-based pathways into teaching.

For fiscal year 2026, the Department lists $70 million in estimated TQP funding.

U.S. Department of Education — Teacher Quality Partnership Program

https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/teacher-preparation-grants/teacher-quality-partnership-program-84336s

Supporting Effective Educator Development

SEED supports evidence-based approaches to preparing and developing educators.

The federal statute allows SEED projects to support activities including:

• teacher and school-leader preparation
• professional development
• alternative certification pathways
• literacy and numeracy training
• programs serving traditionally underserved school systems
• advanced professional credentials

Together, TQP and SEED are designed to strengthen different parts of the educator pipeline.

That makes the case more than a technical dispute about federal administrative law.

It affects programs intended to determine who enters teaching, how they are trained, and where they eventually serve.

Why the Court Rejected the Directive

One major issue identified by Judge Kelley was the relationship between the Department's directive and the laws Congress enacted to govern the programs.

The court noted that the TQP statute itself contains provisions addressing teacher recruitment, equitable participation, underserved communities, diverse student populations, and barriers to educational access.

The court concluded that the February directive could not be reconciled with several of those statutory requirements.

The decision also criticized the agency's decision-making process.

According to the court, the Department implemented the directive rapidly and terminated more than 90 percent of existing TQP and SEED grants.

The court also found that the agency failed to adequately consider important consequences of the policy, including effects on teachers and teacher candidates already participating in preparation pipelines.

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, agencies generally must engage in reasoned decision-making and stay within the authority Congress has given them.

The court concluded that the February 2025 directive failed those requirements.

The Education Department's Position

The Education Department offered a different explanation for the grant terminations.

In its February 17, 2025 announcement, the Department said it had terminated more than $600 million in grants because it believed taxpayer money was supporting programs involving subjects including:

• Critical Race Theory
• diversity, equity, and inclusion
• social-justice activism
• anti-racism
• white privilege
• white supremacy

The Department argued that these programs were inconsistent with its priorities and that teacher-training money should be directed toward other educational goals.

U.S. Department of Education — February 17, 2025 announcement

https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-cuts-over-600-million-divisive-teacher-training-grants

The September 17 ruling does not mean that an administration is prohibited from changing federal education priorities.

Instead, the court concluded that this particular directive and the process used to implement it were unlawful.

Federal agencies can change policy.

They still have to operate within the laws Congress has enacted and the requirements of federal administrative law.

Why Teacher Preparation Matters

The legal dispute is technical.

The underlying workforce problem is not.

The federal court's decision discusses continuing teacher shortages across the country.

The court cited evidence indicating that nearly three-quarters of U.S. public schools reported difficulty filling teacher vacancies in 2024.

The problem is particularly serious in several hard-to-staff areas.

The decision cited lower percentages of fully certified teachers in fields including:

• mathematics
• special education
• English as a second language
• bilingual education

Teacher preparation takes time.

Schools cannot instantly create experienced mathematics teachers, bilingual educators, or special-education professionals when vacancies appear.

The pipeline begins years earlier through recruitment, higher education, certification, residency programs, apprenticeships, mentoring, and early-career support.

That is where programs such as TQP and SEED fit into the larger education system.

What This Means for Teachers and Future Educators

Most current classroom teachers will not experience an immediate change because of the September ruling.

The longer-term consequences are more likely to affect the educator pipeline.

Federal teacher-development grants can support:

• teacher residencies
• apprenticeships
• certification pathways
• professional development
• mentoring
• recruitment into shortage areas

Teacher candidates may feel those effects more directly.

Some residency programs allow prospective teachers to work alongside experienced educators while completing certification.

Others help paraprofessionals, career changers, and graduates transition into teaching.

When multi-year federal funding disappears unexpectedly, universities and districts may have to reduce enrollment, restructure programs, seek replacement funding, or cancel opportunities.

The September ruling removes the February 2025 directive as a lawful basis for future action.

It does not guarantee that every previous program will reopen.

The Classroom Perspective

Teacher-pipeline decisions eventually reach classrooms.

An unfilled position can mean:

• larger class sizes
• long-term substitutes
• administrators covering classes
• teachers taking additional sections
• courses being combined or cancelled
• students receiving instruction from educators working outside their primary certification area

Teacher-training grants cannot solve every educator shortage.

Salary, workload, certification requirements, location, housing costs, working conditions, and retention also matter.

But preparation programs address one crucial part of the problem:

Getting qualified people into classrooms and helping them stay there.

That is why decisions about federal teacher-training grants can eventually affect students who have never heard of TQP, SEED, or the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Bigger Picture

The ruling highlights an important reality about federal education policy.

Presidential administrations have considerable authority to establish priorities.

Congress, however, creates federal programs and determines the statutes governing those programs.

Federal agencies must work within that legal framework.

Meanwhile, TQP itself has not disappeared.

The Education Department's current program page lists $70 million in FY2026 funding and describes teacher preparation, residencies, registered apprenticeships, and high-need schools as current program priorities.

That means the question is no longer simply whether federal teacher-training programs will continue.

The bigger questions are:

What will those programs prioritize?

Who will receive the funding?

And how stable will those commitments remain when administrations change?

What Happens Next

The February 2025 directive has been vacated.

Several possibilities remain.

The federal government could appeal the ruling.

Institutions seeking recovery of previously terminated funds may pursue separate remedies.

The Education Department may also establish new grant priorities, rules, or guidance as long as future actions comply with federal law.

At the same time, the Department continues operating new teacher-development grant competitions under different priorities.

The ruling therefore resolves an important legal question while leaving some financial and policy questions open.

Why This Matters

More than 100 teacher-development grants were terminated under the February 2025 directive.

Those awards were connected to universities, school districts, nonprofit organizations, teacher candidates, and educator-development programs.

The September 17 ruling establishes that the directive used to drive those terminations violated federal administrative law.

It does not mean every cancelled grant immediately returns.

It also does not prevent the federal government from changing future education priorities.

What it does establish is that those changes still have to comply with the laws governing federal education programs.

For a profession already dealing with recruitment and retention challenges, the stability of the teacher pipeline matters.

Key Takeaways

• U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley issued the ruling on September 17, 2026.
• The lawsuit was brought by eight states.
• The case involves the Teacher Quality Partnership and Supporting Effective Educator Development programs.
• The federal court record states that 104 of 109 TQP and SEED grants were terminated under the February 2025 directive.
• The Education Department said the cancelled grants represented more than $600 million.
• The court found the directive arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with law.
• Judge Kelley vacated and set aside the directive in its entirety.
• The decision does not automatically restore every previously terminated grant.
• The Education Department continues operating TQP under newer priorities, with $70 million listed for FY2026.

Frequently Asked Questions

Did the judge restore all $600 million?

No.

The court invalidated the directive used to terminate the grants.

That does not automatically return every previously cancelled award.

Why did the Education Department terminate the grants?

The Department said the grants supported DEI-related and other programming it considered divisive or inconsistent with its priorities.

Why did the court invalidate the directive?

The court concluded that the directive was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to federal statutes and regulations governing the programs.

Can the Education Department still change teacher-training priorities?

Yes.

Federal agencies may establish new priorities within the authority Congress gives them, provided they comply with applicable laws and administrative procedures.

Final Thoughts

Teacher shortages are not created—or solved—in a single budget year.

A teacher who enters a residency program today could remain in classrooms for decades.

A preparation program eliminated today may influence school staffing several years from now.

That is what makes this case worth following beyond the immediate political dispute.

The court did not decide which political philosophy should guide federal education policy.

It decided that changes to federal policy still have to follow the laws governing the programs involved.

Administrations change.

Education priorities change.

But universities, districts, educators, and students often build long-term plans around commitments that extend beyond one election cycle.

For the teacher pipeline, that stability matters.

Support New To Education

New To Education provides educational news, research, legal analysis, practical resources, tutoring support, and learning tools for students, educators, families, and lifelong learners.

Support helps New To Education continue developing free educational content, tutoring access, AI and smart-learning tools, education resources, website and app improvements, and new platform features.

Support New To Education:

https://newtoeducation.com/support-us

Related Articles

The Teacher Shortage Might Not Be a Shortage Anymore

This New To Education article examines whether some teacher shortages also reflect a disconnect between qualified educators and the schools and students who need them.

https://www.newtoeducation.com/view-blog/the-teacher-shortage-might-not-be-a-shortage-anymore-69fa84c083357

Federal vs. State Control of Education: What the "Returning Education to the States" Initiative Could Mean for Teachers, Students, and Public Schools

This article examines the broader debate over federal, state, and local authority in American education.

https://newtoeducation.com/view-blog/federal-vs-state-control-of-education-what-the-returning-education-to-the-states-initiative-could-mean-for-teachers-students-and-public-schools-6a2389d29325f

DoDEA's New Teacher Hiring Initiative Aims to Bring More Educators Into Military Classrooms

This article examines another approach to strengthening the teacher pipeline through recruitment and hiring.

https://www.newtoeducation.com/view-blog/dodeas-new-teacher-hiring-initiative-aims-to-bring-more-educators-into-military-classrooms-6a4c627b3c16d

NTE Coverage Standard

New To Education prioritizes primary sources, including court opinions, government records, legislation, official datasets, and original research.

In legal and policy coverage, New To Education distinguishes between agency positions, allegations, procedural rulings, court findings, final judgments, proposed policies, and enacted law.

Statements made by government officials or litigants are attributed to those sources and should not be interpreted as independent findings by New To Education.

This article is provided for educational and informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.

Sources

U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts — September 17, 2026 Memorandum and Order

This 70-page federal court filing is the primary legal source for the case. It includes the court's findings, the 104-of-109 grant figure, the legal analysis, and the final order vacating the February 2025 directive.

https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/massachusetts/madce/1:2025cv10548/281668/176

California Department of Justice — September 18, 2026

The California Attorney General's office provides an official plaintiff-state summary of the ruling and its implications for teacher-preparation grants.

https://www.oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-secures-court-ruling-finding-termination-k-12-teacher

U.S. Department of Education — February 17, 2025

The Department's original announcement explains its stated reasons for terminating more than $600 million in teacher-training grants.

https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-cuts-over-600-million-divisive-teacher-training-grants

U.S. Department of Education — Teacher Quality Partnership Program

The Department's current TQP page explains the program, teacher-residency and apprenticeship models, current eligibility requirements, and FY2026 funding.

https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/teacher-preparation-grants/teacher-quality-partnership-program-84336s