States fight to keep school mental health funding suit alive

SEATTLE (CN) — States suing to preserve federal funding for mental health programs in schools pushed back on Thursday against the Department of Education’s attempt to have their case thrown out.

Earlier this year, the department discontinued grant programs for next year, claiming the states used the awards in a way that conflicted with the Trump administration’s priorities, though the coalition of 16 states argues the department didn’t specify what those conflicts were.

In federal court, the Department of Education argued that the states lack standing to sue and should have filed any grievances in the Court of Federal Claims.

U.S. District Judge Kymberly Evanson, a Joe Biden appointee, quickly pressed the federal government on its stance.

“Why isn’t the undisputed link between states and public education enough to show that the states have standing?” Evanson asked.

Justice Department attorney Brian Kipnis argued the states hadn’t supported their position with sufficient facts to underscore how the grant terminations harmed them.

“This overall responsibility for public education is too amorphous an interest to create standing,” Kipnis said.

He pointed to the states’ language in the complaint, in which they argued the grant terminations will threaten the safety of children in low-income and rural schools, as well as require state educational agencies to lay off staff hired specifically to provide mental health services.

Kipnis described the passages in question as “nothing but conclusory allegations” and accused the states of erroneously referring to the harm done to educational agencies without naming those agencies as plaintiffs.

Evanson counters that states are empowered to represent their instrumentalities, noting Washington’s authority to legally represent the University of Washington.

Using that very same logic, the states argued that proving standing is as simple as pointing to the fact that the department discontinued a University of Washington grant.

They also said that the grant terminations will burden them by straining state mental health resources in the absence of federally funded programs.

“We’ve alleged there is a youth mental health crisis,” argued Ellen Range, Washington assistant attorney general. “We’ve alleged that kids in rural, low-income areas — those are poor kids — receive these federally funded mental health services, and we’ve alleged that the ending of this federal funding from the noncontinuation decision meant that kids will be turning to the state, taxing our state’s mental health care system.”

The states argued that the terminations will impact an already vulnerable population of students.

“Here we have kids with established medical needs — it’s a question of who’s going to pay,” Range said.

As for jurisdiction, it’s the government’s position that the dispute is a matter of the states seeking to enforce contractual rights, which must be heard in the Court of Federal Claims. The states disagree with that position, arguing their case relies on Administrative Procedure Act violations rather than contract enforcement.

“If they are truly saying that we are seeking is specific performance of a contract, there is no court that has jurisdiction for that,” Range said.

The Department of Education set up two grant programs in 2018 and 2020 to give students in the nation’s high-need, low-income and rural schools access to mental health services following a series of tragic school shootings. 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 need them the most.

In their first year alone, the programs provided mental and behavioral health services to nearly 775,000 elementary and secondary students nationwide, 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, the states argue.

The states sued the government in June, and last month, Evanson heard oral arguments on the states’ motion for a preliminary injunction to block the grant terminations.

Evanson has not yet ruled on that motion and said she would try to return a decision on the motion to dismiss quickly.