Appeals Court Blocks Effort, Restores School Mental Health Grants

A federal appeals court on Thursday denies the Trump administration's bid to pause a lower court order requiring the release of millions of dollars in federal grants aimed at addressing shortages of school mental health workers. The decision restores funding for grantees in states that sued to block the administration's move, including roughly 3.8 million dollars for Madera County and about 8 million dollars for Marin County in California.

The grants were created after the 2022 Uvalde school shooting to help districts hire counselors, psychologists and social workers, with priority for rural and underserved communities. The Department of Education under the Trump administration moved to cancel the awards, criticizing aspects of the application and awarding process that prioritized racial equity and diversity. U.S. District Judge Kymberly K. Evanson had already ruled that the administration's cancellation was "arbitrary and capricious," and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declines to grant an emergency stay of that order.

In denying the stay, the appeals court said the administration had not shown it would suffer irreparable harm if the funding went forward and was unlikely to prevail on jurisdictional arguments. The ruling therefore allows selected grantees to proceed with hiring and program implementation while the underlying legal disputes continue through the courts.

The case illustrates a broader institutional contest over the limits of executive authority to rescind agency awards and over the role of equity considerations in federal grantmaking. Courts reviewing agency decisions apply the Administrative Procedure Act standard that agencies must provide reasoned explanations for major changes. By endorsing Judge Evanson's finding of arbitrary and capricious action, the appeals court underscores judicial insistence on procedural regularity before funding can be revoked.

For local school districts and communities, the immediate impact is practical. Districts that had planned to use the grants to expand mental health services can move forward with recruitment and contracts that were in limbo. Mental health professionals have been in short supply nationwide, and smaller districts in rural areas have particular difficulty filling positions. Restored grant funds will affect timelines for hiring and service delivery, and they may influence school budgets for the coming academic year.

Politically, the decision represents a setback for the administration's effort to curtail grant programs it contends advance divisive concepts. It also illustrates how federal courts can function as a check on executive decisions that alter funding priorities midstream. That dynamic has implications for future administrations that seek to reshape federal education programs through rescission rather than congressional appropriation or rulemaking.

The litigation will continue, and the appeals court action preserves the status quo while judges evaluate the merits. For advocates of expanded school mental health services the ruling buys time to implement programs and demonstrate local impact. For policymakers, the case reinforces the importance of clear procedures and documented rationale when agencies change course, especially on sensitive issues that touch on equity and community needs.