A coalition of 15 states asked a Washington state federal judge to stop the Education Department from canceling millions in school health grants after a temporary restraining order was granted in July. The states claim the department is defying a court order by moving to terminate the grants, which were created to address the shortage of school-based mental health service providers in low-income schools.
The Education Department argued that the only avenue for grantees to challenge terminations is through the Court of Federal Claims, not lower courts. However, U.S. District Judge Kymberly Evanson questioned this argument, stating that there must be a venue in which the plaintiffs can seek declaratory, injunctive relief with respect to the policies discussed.
Background on the Case
The coalition of states initially sued the department last year after it moved to discontinue roughly $1 billion in school mental health grants. Evanson blocked the move in December and ordered the agency to reinstate the grants. The injunction required the department to reconsider each grant using proper regulatory procedures and to base decisions on actual performance data rather than political preferences.
The grant programs at issue were created by Congress in 2018 and 2020, spurred by episodes of devastating school shootings. The multiyear grants are intended to permanently bring 14,000 additional mental health professionals into U.S. schools that need them most. In their first year alone, the programs provided mental and behavioral health services to nearly 775,000 elementary and secondary students nationwide.
Notably, the grants have been instrumental in addressing the shortage of mental health professionals in low-income schools, where the need is most pronounced. By providing funding for these programs, Congress aimed to bridge the gap in mental health services and support the well-being of students in underserved communities.
Arguments Presented in Court
Department of Justice attorney Brian Kipnis told the court that the department hasn’t determined a final agency action or outlined a plan for how grant terminations would be decided. However, Ellen Range, attorney for the plaintiff, strongly disagreed with the department’s characterization that it had no termination plan and cited notices to grantees about stopping funds for next year, as well as grant guidance from the department’s webpage, as evidence.
Read Also: Global ocean protection efforts fall short
Jennifer Chung, attorney for the plaintiff states, said the harm of the terminations, even with the temporary restraining order in place, is already happening. “School has already started or is starting soon, and they need to know how much funding is available for full semesters,” Chung said. “This is affecting hiring for mental health staff, recruiting graduate student interns and ultimately affecting whether mental health services will be available in public schools within plaintiff states.”
Furthermore, the uncertainty surrounding the grant terminations has created a challenging environment for schools to plan and budget for mental health services. With the new school year underway, schools are facing difficult decisions about how to allocate resources and prioritize student needs, making a timely resolution to the case key.
Impact of the Grant Programs
The states claimed that the grant programs have resulted in a 50% reduction in suicide risk at high-need schools, decreases in absenteeism and behavioral issues, and increases in positive student-staff engagement. The programs have also provided mental and behavioral health services to a large number of students.
Evanson took the motion under submission and said she would publish an order soon. The case highlights the ongoing debate over the role of the federal government in funding school mental health programs and the impact of political preferences on grant decisions.
As the court considers the motion, the Education Department and the coalition of states await a decision that will determine the fate of the school mental health grants. The outcome of the case will have significant implications for the provision of mental health services in public schools across the country.
It is clear that the court’s decision will be important.
The Education Department’s actions have been controversial.
Read Also: Argentines Face Debt Trap as Deregulation Raises Costs
Judge Evanson will make a decision soon.
The case is being closely watched by educators and lawmakers.
The grant programs have been successful in reducing suicide risk and improving student behavior.
The court’s decision will affect the lives of many students and families.
The Education Department and the coalition of states are waiting for the court’s decision.
The outcome of the case will be significant.
