In a decisive move that underscores the judiciary’s role in maintaining the stability of federal programs, a federal judge has ordered the permanent reinstatement of unlawfully canceled multi-year mental health grants across 16 states. The ruling from U.S. District Judge Kymberly Evanson represents a significant legal defeat for the U.S. Department of Education under the Trump administration, which had abruptly terminated funding for two critical initiatives: the School-Based Mental Health Services Grant Program and the Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program. This decision resolves a contentious legal battle, ensuring that vital support systems designed to address the nation’s youth mental health crisis will be restored for the states that challenged the administration’s actions. The case, State of Washington v. U.S. Department of Education, has become a landmark example of the conflict between established administrative procedure and the exercise of political will over Congressionally approved, multi-year federal commitments that millions of students depend on.
A Lifeline Created in Response to Crisis
The grant programs at the center of the dispute were not arbitrary allocations but a direct and considered response to a series of national tragedies and a growing public health emergency. Initially established in 2018 following the devastating school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, these initiatives were designed to proactively address rising concerns over school violence and the worsening youth mental health crisis. The recognized importance and effectiveness of the programs led to their continuation and expansion over the years, including after the 2022 shooting at Robb Elementary School in Texas, further cementing their role as a critical component of the national strategy for student safety and well-being. The multi-year funding structure was intentional, providing school districts with the stability needed to recruit, hire, and retain qualified mental health professionals, thereby building sustainable support networks within educational communities rather than offering mere temporary solutions.
The tangible benefits of this stable funding were profound and immediate, as detailed in court records from the lawsuit led by Washington Attorney General Nick Brown. In their first year of operation alone, the grants facilitated the hiring of approximately 14,000 mental health professionals who, in turn, provided essential mental and behavioral health services to nearly 775,000 K-12 students nationwide. This influx of expertise dramatically improved school climates, offering students accessible support for issues ranging from anxiety and depression to trauma and behavioral challenges. Furthermore, it significantly reduced the often-long wait times for students in urgent need of intervention, ensuring that help was available when it was most critical. The lawsuit effectively argued that the administration’s sudden termination of these funds would not only dismantle this vital infrastructure but also betray the trust of schools and communities that had planned their budgets and staffing around the government’s multi-year commitment.
An Abrupt Reversal Driven by New Priorities
The conflict ignited in April when the Department of Education, without prior warning, abruptly discontinued funding that had already been approved and allocated for fiscal years 2022, 2023, and 2024. The department’s official justification was that the existing grant frameworks were in conflict with a new set of priorities established by the Trump administration. These new priorities, which were formally announced in July, veered sharply away from the programs’ original focus on mental health access and introduced a set of contentious ideological restrictions. Under the new rules, grant recipients were prohibited from using funds for any activities that could be construed as “promoting or endorsing gender ideology, political activism, racial stereotyping, or hostile environments for students of particular races.” This sudden shift injected a polarizing political agenda into what had been a widely supported public health initiative, creating confusion and dismay among educators and state officials.
Beyond the imposition of ideological constraints, the administration’s new priorities also drastically narrowed the functional scope of the programs, fundamentally altering their comprehensive approach to student support. The revised criteria limited all new funding exclusively to the hiring of school psychologists. This change deliberately excluded school counselors and social workers, professionals who are often on the front lines of providing direct mental health support and are integral to a school’s ecosystem of care. By sidelining these key roles, the administration dismantled the holistic model that had proven so effective. In a striking coincidence that underscored the urgency of the legal challenge, the court’s order to reinstate the original grants came just one week after the Education Department had awarded $208 million in new mental health grants under these same revised and highly restrictive criteria, highlighting the immediate clash between the two competing visions for student well-being.
The Court’s Scathing Rebuke
In her December 19 order, Judge Evanson delivered a sharp and thorough critique of the Education Department’s actions, finding that the agency had repeatedly violated the Administrative Procedure Act. She unequivocally deemed the department’s conduct to be “arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law.” A key element of her finding was that the discontinuation notices sent to the grantees were legally deficient because they failed to provide any coherent explanation or rational justification for the sudden and impactful cancellations. The judge noted that the department made no credible effort to ground its decision in existing legal precedent, observing, “The Department makes no effort to analogize the discontinuation notices or the process by which the notices were issued to the cases they cite.” This focus on procedural failure highlighted that the agency had not only made a harmful policy choice but had also failed to adhere to the basic legal standards governing administrative conduct.
The most forceful and consequential aspect of the ruling was its categorical rejection of the politicization of the federal grant process. Judge Evanson’s order articulated a clear principle that multi-year federal commitments cannot be dismantled at will based on shifting political winds. In a powerfully worded rebuke to the department’s rationale, she stated, “Nothing in the existing regulatory scheme comports with the Department’s view that multi-year grants may be discontinued whenever the political will to do so arises.” This statement directly challenged the administration’s assertion of discretionary power and reinforced the idea that Congressionally approved programs carry a weight that transcends partisan agendas. The decision serves as a crucial precedent, affirming that governmental agencies are bound by law and procedure, not just political convenience, thereby protecting the stability of long-term initiatives essential for public welfare.
A Precedent for Future Protections
The consequences of the ruling are both immediate and substantial for the 16 plaintiff states that successfully challenged the administration. The permanent injunction issued by Judge Evanson does more than just reinstate the canceled funding, which court records estimated amounted to a national total of approximately $1 billion; it also prevents the Education Department from applying its new, restrictive priorities or any other irrelevant criteria when judging grant applications from these states. This ensures that the funds can be used as originally intended: to build comprehensive, multi-disciplinary mental health support teams in schools. To guarantee adherence to her order, the judge announced that the court will maintain oversight to monitor the department’s compliance. This decision makes permanent a preliminary injunction that Judge Evanson had granted in October, solidifying a significant victory for the states and the students they serve.
The ruling was met with widespread praise from the state officials and professional organizations involved in the legal challenge. Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, whose office led the lawsuit, had stressed the critical importance of dependable funding in a time of crisis, stating, “We’re facing a youth mental health crisis. Making sure our kids have proper support should never be subject to political whim.” This sentiment was echoed by Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, who said the ruling “ensures that our young people are not unlawfully denied resources.” Advocacy groups saw the decision as a landmark moment with broader implications. Myrna Mandlawitz of the Council of Administrators of Special Education (CASE) suggested the ruling could set a powerful precedent for other lawsuits over canceled grants. She had argued that an agency cannot enforce criteria against a grantee that were unknown when the grant was first awarded, a principle this decision strongly affirmed. Ultimately, this legal victory reinforced the rule of law over arbitrary administrative action and secured a vital lifeline for student mental health.
