A contentious legal dispute over federal funding for school-based mental health services has reignited, with 15 states filing a new lawsuit against the Department of Education. This latest legal challenge aims to prevent the department from terminating grants established to bolster mental health support for students, particularly in the wake of tragic school shootings. The states argue that the department’s renewed efforts to cut funding are illegal and will disproportionately harm vulnerable student populations.
Background: A Legacy of Tragic Events and Policy Shifts
The Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program and the School-Based Mental Health Services Grant Program were initially established in response to the devastating 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida. These programs were designed to increase the number of mental health professionals in schools and expand the availability of critical mental health services for students. Following the 2022 massacre at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, the importance and scope of these initiatives were further underscored, leading to their expansion under the Biden administration.
Under the previous administration’s guidance, recipients of these grants were specifically encouraged to enhance the diversity, cultural, and linguistic competency of their school-based mental health providers. This included a focus on ensuring services were "identity-safe," meaning they were delivered in a way that respected and affirmed students’ diverse backgrounds and identities. This approach aimed to make mental health support more accessible and effective for all students.
However, the landscape shifted dramatically with the second Trump administration. In February 2025, the Department of Education announced an abrupt termination of multiyear funding for many recipients who had been meeting the Biden administration’s criteria. The department cited that the districts’ plans "reflect the prior Administration’s priorities and policy preferences and conflict with those of the current Administration." This decision immediately raised concerns about the continuity of essential mental health services for countless students.
Chronology of the Legal Conflict
The initial legal confrontation began shortly after the department’s February 2025 decision. Several states, including Washington, challenged the administrative procedures that led to the abrupt cancellations of these multiyear grants. The core of their argument was that the department lacked the legal authority to unilaterally terminate grants that had been awarded for multiple years, especially without following proper administrative procedures or providing adequate justification beyond a change in political priorities.
This legal battle culminated in a significant victory for the states in December 2025. U.S. District Judge Kymberly Evanson ruled in State of Washington v. U.S. Department of Education that the department’s actions were unlawful. Judge Evanson’s decision was unequivocal, stating, "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 ruling effectively blocked the department’s initial attempt to end the grants based on policy disagreements.
The Department of Education subsequently attempted to appeal this decision. However, earlier this year, the department lost its appeal, reinforcing the court’s stance that the grant terminations were improperly executed. This meant the department was compelled to revisit its decisions on whether to continue or discontinue the grants, adhering to legal and procedural requirements.
Despite the prior legal setbacks, the states allege that the department is now pursuing a similar strategy, albeit with modified procedures. They claim the agency has only provided approximately six months of continued funding and has indicated that final determinations regarding the grants will be made after a mid-year review. It is this perceived continuation of the effort to end the grants that has prompted the new lawsuit.
The New Legal Offensive: Proactive Measures to Preserve Funding
The 15 states have filed their latest lawsuit proactively, seeking to preemptively block any further attempts by the Department of Education to terminate the grants. They contend that the department is still seeking to end "some or all" of these crucial funding streams, with a potential cutoff date of July 31. The states are determined to preserve the funding that supports vital mental health services for their students.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, a vocal critic of the department’s actions and one of the plaintiffs in the new lawsuit, issued a strong statement. "The first time this administration tried to take mental health services away from children, we beat them in court," James declared. "Now they are trying to carry out the same illegal scheme and abandon students who need support." Her statement highlights the states’ perception that the department is engaging in a pattern of behavior aimed at dismantling these programs despite legal injunctions.
The states’ argument centers on the illegality of the department’s underlying mechanism for ending the protected grants. While the precise procedural steps may have evolved, the states maintain that the fundamental illegality of terminating these multiyear commitments based on shifting policy preferences remains unchanged.
The Department’s Counterarguments
The Department of Education, however, has contested the broad interpretation of the court’s previous injunction. In court documents filed during the initial dispute, the department argued that the suing states were misconstruing the original court order. The department’s position was that the injunction primarily protected states from grant discontinuations that occurred as a result of improper administrative procedures, rather than granting an absolute shield against any and all funding terminations.
In a July 1 court document, the department stated, "Reversing course, the States now contend that the Court’s injunction sweeps far more broadly." The department further argued that the court order "never gave states ‘a legal entitlement to receive federal funding.’" This suggests the department believes it retains the discretion to adjust or terminate funding based on legitimate administrative and programmatic reviews, provided they adhere to the procedural requirements clarified by the courts.
The Stakes: Impact on Students and Schools
The potential termination of these grants carries significant implications for students and educational institutions across the nation. For New York alone, Attorney General James estimates that the state would lose $19 million if the funding is successfully terminated. This includes a substantial $7.6 million earmarked for the State University of New York (SUNY) system.
Such a loss would have tangible consequences. The SUNY system, for instance, has indicated that it would be forced to withdraw mental health professionals from schools serving over 9,000 rural students. This would also likely lead to layoffs of full-time and part-time employees within the university system who are dedicated to providing these critical services. Beyond SUNY, New York school districts could face severe funding shortages, jeopardizing their ability to offer essential mental health support to their student bodies.
The ripple effect extends to all participating states. These grants are not merely budgetary line items; they represent a lifeline for schools struggling with the increasing demand for mental health services. The reduction or elimination of this funding could force schools to:
- Scale back or eliminate existing mental health programs: This could mean fewer counselors, psychologists, and social workers available to students.
- Reduce the availability of specialized services: Programs focusing on trauma-informed care, crisis intervention, or specific mental health conditions might be curtailed.
- Increase caseloads for remaining staff: Existing mental health professionals would likely face overwhelming workloads, potentially impacting the quality and accessibility of care.
- Diminish efforts to improve diversity and cultural competency: The focus on identity-safe services, crucial for equitable access, could be undermined.
The programs were established with the explicit goal of addressing the mental health crisis among young people, a crisis exacerbated by the trauma of school violence and other societal pressures. Undoing this progress without a viable alternative could leave a void in student support systems, with potentially long-lasting negative consequences for individual well-being and school safety.
Participating States and Future Outlook
The states involved in this legal battle represent a significant coalition committed to safeguarding federal mental health funding for schools. The original lawsuit filed last year included several states, and the new lawsuit sees a strong contingent continuing the fight.
The states that filed the original lawsuit last year and are also part of the new lawsuit are:
- New York
- Washington
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Hawaii
- Illinois
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- New Jersey
- Oregon
- Vermont
- Wisconsin
Notably, Nevada was part of the original lawsuit but did not join the most recent legal filing. The continued participation of these 15 states underscores the shared concern and unified front against the Department of Education’s actions.
The legal proceedings are ongoing, and the outcome of this new lawsuit will be critical in determining the future of federal support for school mental health services. The states are seeking a definitive judicial declaration that prevents the department from terminating these grants, especially based on grounds previously deemed unlawful. The Department of Education, conversely, maintains its position on the interpretation of court orders and its administrative discretion.
As this legal saga unfolds, the well-being of millions of students hangs in the balance. The battle over these grants highlights the complex interplay between federal policy, educational priorities, and the urgent need for accessible mental health care in American schools. The courts will once again be tasked with interpreting the law and ensuring that federal funding intended to protect vulnerable youth is not unjustly withdrawn.
