The Biden administration initially distributed the funds, prioritizing applicants who demonstrated plans to hire counselors from diverse backgrounds or from the communities they serve.
A United States federal appeals court has rejected an effort by the Trump administration to halt a court order requiring the release of millions of dollars in school mental health grants aimed at easing nationwide shortages of counselors, psychologists, and social workers.
The grants, approved by Congress after the 2022 Uvalde, Texas, school shooting, were designed to help districts, particularly in rural and underserved communities, bolster student mental health services, according to AP as published by CTPOST.
The Biden administration initially distributed the funds, prioritizing applicants who demonstrated plans to hire counselors from diverse backgrounds or from the communities they serve.
But the Trump administration moved to unwind parts of the program, arguing that race-conscious criteria embedded in some grants were “divisive” and harmful to students.
Officials instructed recipients they would not receive funding beyond December 2025.
In October, U.S. District Judge Kymberly K. Evanson ruled the move to cancel the grants “arbitrary and capricious,” prompting the U.S. Department of Education and Education Secretary Linda McMahon to seek an emergency stay.
However, on Thursday, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied that request.
In its decision, the panel wrote that the government failed to show it was likely to succeed on its jurisdictional arguments or that it would suffer “irreparable injury” without a stay.
The preliminary ruling applies only to grantees in 16 Democratic-led states that sued to block the administration’s actions.
In California, for instance, the decision restores roughly $3.8 million in Madera County and about $8 million in Marin County.
After Evanson’s ruling in October, the Trump administration said the grants had been used “to promote divisive ideologies based on race and sex,” a characterization strongly disputed by the states and school districts that brought the lawsuit.