Judge gives Education Department more time to decide who gets mental health grants

SEATTLE (CN) — A federal judge extended the deadline for the U.S. Department of Education to make continuation decisions for school mental health grants.

Congress previously established two programs that awarded mental health funding to the nation’s high-need, low-income and rural schools in the wake of school shootings, but Washington and 16 other states sued the department and U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon over discontinuing the grants based on the grantees’ promotion of diversity, equity and inclusion.

In December 2025, U.S. District Judge Kymberly Evanson found the department improperly discontinued the grants and ordered it to make all continuation decisions by Dec. 30, 2025.

In a sparse courtroom on Thursday, the department reasoned that it didn’t have enough time to comprehensively process those decisions, especially not in the wake of the October and November 2025 government shutdown.

“We’ve had conversations about complying with the court’s order, and understanding the order required some time to filter that through counsel and convey that to staff,” said Brian Kipnis from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, who added that the states didn’t present sufficient evidence that the department could reasonably meet the original deadline.

Instead, he asked Evanson to allow the department to make all continuation decisions by or before Feb. 6 and said he expected all approved grantees would receive full funding for the 2026 calendar year within two to three business days of the new deadline.

Washington State Assistant Attorney General Ellen Range disagreed.

“The defendants spectacularly failed to comply with the court’s order and are proceeding with their original plan — an end of the programs they tagged as DEI,” said Range.

Range asked for a compliance plan preventing the department from halting continuation decisions until the department exhausted the funds, which Evanson previously called contrary to law, and increasing interim funding from five weeks to six months.

She also called for a transparent review to show where the $208 million that funded new grants came from. If it came from funds originally intended for the states, Range argued, they need to know if they must prepare for a lack of funds in 2027.

“We are trying to ensure that there isn’t a perverse incentive for the defendants to not comply with the order, because as long as they aren’t complying, they’re winning this litigation,” said Range.

Kipnis countered that the department always intended to fund viable grantees, and those who receive continuation decisions don’t need interim funding. Also, it didn’t make sense to give money to prospective grantees that might not receive approval.

“The court would essentially be awarding the grantees federal funds they aren’t entitled to and which the federal government would never recover, which is a harm,” said Kipnis.

After a brief recess, Evanson acknowledged the states’ frustration with the department’s inability to comply with the original deadline and the delay in communicating this inability. However, she ruled the states didn’t show this court has the authority to significantly extend its power to enforce the order the way the states wanted.

“Although the court is troubled by this state of affairs, and it is indeed troubling, this court must act where we find ourselves, not where we wish we were or where we expected to be,” said Evanson.

Evanson ordered the department to comply with the new deadline, issue awards by Feb. 11, and submit related status reports by Feb. 12.

She also warned the government against further delay.

“I want there to be no doubt that the department should continue its work at a rapid pace and to not await any adjudication,” said Evanson.

Follow @kndrleon