The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has issued a ruling affecting the Council for Opportunity in Education (COE) and its members regarding federal education grants. This decision comes after COE challenged the U.S. Department of Education's (DOE) denial of Student Support Services (SSS) grants and the discontinuation of TRIO funding. The ruling is significant as it addresses the impact of federal policies on educational support programs aimed at disadvantaged students.
The court's opinion, dated May 27, 2026, stems from two consolidated cases: Civil Action No. 2025-3491 (SSS Case) and Civil Action No. 2025-3514 (TRIO Case). The rulings will affect numerous educational institutions that rely on these federal grants to provide essential services to students from low-income backgrounds.
Background
The Council for Opportunity in Education is an organization dedicated to increasing access to post-secondary education for disadvantaged students. It represents various educational institutions that apply for federal grants to support programs designed to help these students succeed. The dispute arose after the DOE denied grant applications and discontinued funding for several COE members, claiming that these actions were necessary to align with the current Administration's policies.
The DOE's actions were based on a review process that allegedly determined that certain grant-funded activities conflicted with the Administration's anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies. In July 2025, the Department sent denial letters to some COE members, stating that their programs were inconsistent with federal nondiscrimination requirements. This prompted COE to file lawsuits against the DOE and Secretary McMahon, claiming violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and constitutional rights.
COE's legal challenges included requests for declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the DOE's decisions were arbitrary and capricious. The court initially granted COE a preliminary injunction in January 2026, which temporarily halted the Department's funding denials and ordered a review of the grant applications.
The Ruling
In its latest ruling, the court granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss filed by the DOE. Judge Tanya S. Chutkan presided over the case and addressed various claims brought by COE, including ultra vires claims and constitutional challenges.
The court ruled, "the only remaining arguments are Defendants’ challenges to COE’s constitutional claims, ultra vires claims, and mandamus claims."
The court dismissed COE's ultra vires and mandamus claims, affirming that the APA provided a sufficient avenue for review of COE's grievances. However, the court allowed certain constitutional claims to proceed, particularly those related to the Take Care Clause of the Constitution.
Judge Chutkan stated, "the court must take all well-pleaded factual allegations as true at the motion to dismiss stage."
This ruling acknowledges the importance of the allegations made by COE regarding the impact of the DOE's funding decisions on educational programs for disadvantaged students.
Impact
The court's decision has immediate implications for educational institutions that rely on federal funding to support their programs. By partially granting COE's motions, the court reinstates the potential for funding for certain members while also allowing the organization to challenge the basis of the DOE's funding decisions.
This ruling may set a precedent for future cases involving federal education grants and the interpretation of civil rights laws in the context of educational funding. It highlights the ongoing tension between federal policies and educational equity initiatives, particularly in light of changing administrations and their respective priorities.
What's Next
While the court's ruling provides some relief for COE and its members, it remains to be seen how the DOE will respond. The Department may appeal certain aspects of the ruling, particularly those related to the constitutional claims. Additionally, COE's legal battles may continue as it seeks to expand the scope of the preliminary injunction to cover more members affected by the funding decisions.