The Department of Education terminated several grants. The recipients challenged the terminations in federal district court. The district court issued a temporary restraining order, enjoining the terminations. The district court found the terminations likely violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The government asked the U.S. Supreme Court to vacate the TRO. In a recently issued decision, the Supreme Court sided with the government and stayed the TRO. The Supreme Court held that the district court likely lacked jurisdiction under the APA because the APA’s waiver of government immunity does not extend to a suit to enforce “a contractual obligation to pay money.” Instead, the court opined that the suit should have been brought under the Tucker Act in the Court of Federal Claims.
Dept. of Ed v. California
Reforming the Federal Contracts and Grants System
Trending Now
Federal Court Strikes Down NEH’s Mass Termination of Over 1,400 Grants • DoD – War Department Multiyear Purchases Spur Industrial Base Investments • From Paper Reform to Practice: How Agencies Are Actually Implementing the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul • Deal Team Six: Finally, the Pentagon Makes Defense Contractors an Offer They Can’t Refuse • Fixed-Price Contracting Works. But Not If the Government Outsources Ambiguity
Supreme Court Says Suits Challenging Terminated Grants Should Be Filed in the COFC
Erik Cox Photography | Shutterstock
Track federal procurement transformation with daily updates on DOGE, agency reform, and policy changes with our Transforming Procurement newsletter, delivering up-to-the-minute intelligence Monday–Saturday — Subscribe here.