Dismantling/Restructuring of the Department of Education (Executive Order of Mar. 20, 2025)
State of New York v. McMahon (D.Mass)
Case No. 1:25-cv-10601 Complaint 2025-03-13 Overview:Twenty states and the District of Columbia requested the court to halt the announced Department of Education (DOE) and the Trump administration’s planned Reduction in Force (RIF) of half of the remaining employees of the DOE and closure of the DOE. The states based their claims on violations of the constitutional separation of powers and the Executive’s duty of care to execute laws, and as arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Case Summary: On March 13, the Attorneys General of twenty states and the District of Columbia sued the DOE and the Trump administration to halt a planned Reduction in Force (RIF), which would reduce DOE’s staff of 4,133 by approximately 1,378. The RIF is itself only an announced “first step” in a “total shutdown” by Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, the complaint alleges. The suit points to statutory authority that mandates DOE functions under the 1979 Department of Education Organizing Act and other Acts including the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965) and
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1975), and other education, disability, and civil rights laws. It states the Secretary of DOE is only authorized to reorganize by “allocat[ing] or reallocat[ing] functions among the officers of the Department” or modifying “organizational entities within the Department as may be necessary or appropriate,” 20 U.S.C. § 3473(a). Under counts alleging constitutional violations, ultra vires (acts outside of statutory authority), and violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, the states move the Court to vacate efforts to “dismantle” the DOE, to declare them illegal, and to enjoin the RIF.
Update 1: On Mar. 24, Plaintiffs submitted a motion for a preliminary injunction.
Update 1: On Mar. 24, Plaintiffs submitted a motion for a preliminary injunction.
Update 2: On Apr. 11, Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Defendants argue that the court should deny relief because the programs identified by Plaintiffs are within the discretion of the Secretary of the DOE instead of being statutorily mandated and that Plaintiffs have failed to identify how the reduction in workforce is tied to the DOE’s inability to perform its statutory duties.
Update 3: On Apr. 18, Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction in which they claim Defendants’ opposition mischaracterized the mass termination of employees as minor changes. 2025-04-18
###
Executive Action: Changes to Social Security Administration
American Association of People With Disabilities v. Dudek (D.D.C.)
Case No. 1:25-cv-00977 Complaint 2025-04-02 Overview: Disability rights organizations and individuals with disabilities who receive government benefits have sued the Social Security Administration (SAA), Department of Government Efficiency Service (DOGE), and the leaders of these two organizations for their roles in reducing SAA’s workforce, ability to operate, and ability to provide access to SAA benefits and services by telephone, which disproportionately impacts people with disabilities who rely on telephone-based services. These organizations and individuals allege violations of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Constitution, and Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court has ordered SAA and DOGE to temporarily revoke their actions and cease from making additional workforce changes until they can ensure such changes will not impact Plaintiffs’ access to services.
Case Summary: On Jan. 20, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order No. 14158 establishing the Department of Government Efficiency Service (DOGE), which is allegedly led by Elon Musk. Under the direction of Defendants Musk and DOGE, the Social Security Administration (SAA) has eliminated two offices that enable it to meet the needs of beneficiaries with disabilities: the Office of Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity (OCREO) and the Office of Transformation. SAA’s workforce has also been significantly reduced, which is impacting its ability to provide its beneficiaries of essential services, and SSA has eliminated the ability of many beneficiaries to use the telephone to, among other things, file benefit claims. Plaintiffs are disability rights organizations and individuals with disabilities, including older adults, who depend on Social Security benefits to meet their most basic and essential needs. They are suing the SAA, DOGE, and the leaders of these two organizations for their roles in dismantling and reducing the SAA workforce. Plaintiffs allege the government’s actions constitute violations of Section 504(a) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Fifth Amendment procedural due process, the First Amendment right to petition the government, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (specifically, claiming that these actions are arbitrary and capricious, in excess of statutory authority, not in accordance with law, and unlawfully withheld). Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to halt the restrictions on access to SSA benefits and ensure SAA is compelled to fulfill its statutory duties following the dismantling of its workforce.
Update 1: Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction requesting that the Court order SAA and DOGE to revoke their actions and prevent these agencies from making additional workforce changes until they can ensure such changes will not impact Plaintiffs’ access to services.
Update 2: On Apr. 3, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction without issuing a full opinion due to the expedited nature of the matter.
Update 3: On Apr. 16, SSA and DOGE filed their opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. These agencies argue that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims, Plaintiffs’ claims fail on the merits, and that the SSA’s administrative reforms were adequately explained and subject to agency discretion.
Update 4: On Apr. 21, Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction in which they note SSA and DOGE provide no evidence of widespread fraud to justify their overhaul of the SSA. 2025-04-21
###
Government Grants, Loans and Assistance
Executive Action: Denial of federal grants
State of New York v. Department of Education (D. Mass)
Case No. 1:25-cv-11116 Complaint 2025-04-25 Overview: A coalition of nineteen states sued to block the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) from enforcing its April 3 directive ordering states to certify their compliance with civil rights laws as a requirement for receiving federal funds for education. The Plaintiffs claim that the certification requirement is an effort to weaponize Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to eliminate programs supporting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).
Case Summary: Following a series of Executive Orders (EOs) by President Trump aimed at eliminating (DEI) programs and practices in schools, the DOE Office for Civil Rights published a Dear Colleague Letter on Feb. 14, 2025 announcing its intentions for enforcing the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which bans race-based affirmative action and which the administration views as restricting DEI. While State and Local Education Agencies (SEAs and LEAs) routinely provide written assurances that they will comply with Title VI as a requirement for receiving federal funds for education, on Apr. 3, the DOE informed SEAs that they would now be required to complete a new form of certification showing compliance with the principles underlying the Students for Fair Admissions decision. The new certification requires SEAs to affirmatively investigate whether LEAs are supporting DEI, report on any non-compliance, and develop plans to enforce compliance. It requires SEA’s to obtain separate certifications for each LEA in their state. Continued federal financial assistance was made expressly contingent upon certification, and the SEAs were threatened with potential liability and litigation consequences for failure to certify.
The DOE reached an Agreement to postpone the deadline of certification to Apr.24, and on Apr. 25 nineteen states sued to block enforcement of the certification requirement. The plaintiffs allege that the certification requirement is an unjustified interference with state and local control of education and that many of the federal funding statutes under which the states receive funding specifically require the implementation of a number of practices relating to DEI. They also assert that the certification requirement is an unlawful interpretation of existing civil rights laws, and that compliance is impossible due to the impermissibly vague language of the requirement.
The complaint alleges that the certification requirement violates the Administrative Procedure Act as contrary to law including Title VI, DOE enabling legislation and other statutes such as the
Americans with Disabilities Act, in excess of statutory and regulatory authority, without observance of procedure, and arbitrary and capricious. The Plaintiffs also assert violation of Separation of Powers due to usurping of legislative authority, the Appropriations Clause, the Spending Clause, and ultra vires doctrines.
The Plaintiffs ask the court to declare the certification requirement unlawful, null and void, and vacated, and to preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Defendants from implementing the certification requirement.
= new reply since forum marked as read
