Judge rejects bid to toss states’ suit over school mental health funding cuts

SEATTLE (CN) — A federal judge in Washington State on Tuesday refused to dismiss a multistate lawsuit challenging the Department of Education’s decision to cut school mental health funding.

“Because the complaint adequately alleges an injury to plaintiff states, and the authority of the attorneys general to bring claims to redress those injuries, the court denies defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for want of standing,” wrote U.S. District Judge Kymberly Evanson wrote in the 21-page lawsuit

Earlier this year, the department discontinued $1 billion in school mental health funding for next year, claiming the states used the grants in a way that conflicted with the Trump administration’s priorities, although the coalition of 16 states argues the department didn’t specify what those conflicts were.

The funds were awarded under the Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program and the School-Based Mental Health Services Grant Program and were considered quite successful, according to the states.

At a hearing before Evanson in early October, the states argued that the loss of funding will further strain their mental health care systems and dry up the pipeline of mental health providers willing to work in low-income and rural communities.

The Department of Education characterized the accusations as conclusory or speculative and insufficient to prove that the states have standing to bring the claims.

But Evanson found that the states were indeed likely to fill the gap left by the discontinuation of grant-funded mental health services for students with high needs, if any state services were to remain accessible in low-income and rural areas.

“​​The court does not find this link to be so attenuated or unpredictable that a reasonable inference cannot be drawn,” Evanson wrote.

Further, she found that the states have standing to bring the claims as representatives of their state institutions, which are directly affected by the cuts, and to protect their own interests in light of the harm that results to them due to the cuts.

The Department of Education also argued that the federal court lacked jurisdiction over the claims.

While the federal government has sovereign immunity from lawsuits seeking monetary relief, the Administrative Procedure Act waives that immunity for suits seeking only declaratory or injunctive relief. However, the Tucker Act states that federal courts are restricted from hearing contract claims disguised as constitutional claims, which is what the Department of Education claims is happening in this instance.

The states disputed that notion, insisting their injury is founded in the violation of statutes, regulations and the Constitution, rather than any breach of grant terms. Evanson agreed.

“That the department continues to pay out on the grants and did not terminate them also undermines the availability of contract remedies,” Evanson wrote.

Plus, the states don’t accuse the department of violating any grant term as the source of their claim or in their request for relief.

“Defendants’ repeated characterizations in briefing and at oral argument notwithstanding, the complaint does not seek monetary relief either explicitly or implicitly,” Evanson wrote.

Instead, the states are seeking an injunction to block the discontinuation of the grants, preventing the department from diverting grant funds and requiring the department to make new grant continuation decisions before the next budget period.

“Plaintiff states acknowledge that new decisions must be made, but seek only to require the department to make ’lawful’ decisions, rather than to require continuation of grantee funding,” Evanson wrote, noting that the Ninth Circuit referred to such claims as “garden-variety APA claims.”

The department lodged more arguments in its effort to dodge the lawsuit, asserting that the grantees, rather than the states, are the real parties in interest and that its discontinuation decision isn’t subject to judicial review. But as with its previous arguments, these too failed.

“The court rejects defendants’ argument that the discontinuation decisions are not subject to judicial review,” Evanson wrote.

Congress created the grant programs in 2018 and 2020 in response to a series of tragic and devastating losses from school shootings, the states said. The multiyear grants are meant to address the shortage of school-based mental health service providers in low-income schools, and they aim to permanently bring 14,000 additional mental health professionals into U.S. schools that serve vulnerable communities.

According to the states, the programs provided mental and behavioral health services to nearly 775,000 elementary and secondary students nationwide in the first year alone, and they have resulted in a 50% reduction in suicide risk at high-need schools, decreases in absenteeism and behavioral issues and increases in positive student-staff engagement.

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment.