Education Department Ordered to Undo Civil Rights Cuts (Correct)

A federal judge granted a Massachusetts nonprofit’s request to block the Trump administration’s efforts to cut the US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.

Judge Myong J. Joun approved a preliminary injunction Wednesday that requires the White House to stop employee layoffs for that office and blocks them from reinstating a March 11 reduction-in-staff directive. The injunction is effective immediately and the Trump administration must also provide the court a notice of the employees’ return within 24 hours, an opinion filed in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts said.

The Massachusetts-based Victims Rights Law Center sued the administration on behalf of two students over the March reduction-in-force directive that shut down seven of the 12 offices within the Office of Civil Rights and dismissed, half of its 550-person staff, the opinion says. Plaintiffs claimed mothballing the office created a resource gap significantly harming students experiencing sexual, racial and disability discrimination.

“Students have already seen their investigations stall,” Joun said in reference to student plaintiffs. “In the absence of those resources, the Students’ access to education has been significantly impeded.”

The case is part of litigation brought on by 21 attorneys general, and schools, education non-profits and labor unions challenging the Trump administration’s reduction-in-force orders targeting the Education Department. The same judge granted a preliminary injunction for on May 22 that enjoined Trump’s RIF for the Education Department and ordered the administration to restore its workforce.

The OCR is tasked by Congress to enforce federal civil rights laws banning discrimination based on race, sex, and disability in the public education system. It has investigated student discrimination claims for the past 40 years, according to the opinion.

Injury Claims Succeed

Plaintiffs properly established claims of irreparable harm and violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, Joun ruled. Both the students and nonprofit are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the reduction-in-staff directive was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to the law under the APA, he said.

The US Senate Committee on Appropriations issued a statement on June 3 justifying layoffs in the OCR, but Joun found the statement failed to explain how the terminations would “strengthen oversight” of civil rights law.

Unlike what’s promised in that statement, the current administration doesn’t provide any evidence pointing to how reorganizing personnel by specialized topics or establishing a Title IX investigations task force would allow the OCR to better perform its duties, Joun concluded.

There is no evidence of documented discussion or consideration of the likelihood that gutting the agency would “severely undermine OCR’s capacity to investigate and resolve its growing backlog of civil rights complaints,’” the opinion adds.

“I can only read this statement to conclude that the way the new administration is increasing ‘efficiency’ is by investigating certain categories of complaints that it deems ‘legitimate,’ and foregoing others. But this goes squarely against what Congress mandated,” Joun wrote in deeming the RIF arbitrary and capricious.

The directive also “violates numerous laws” that laid the foundation of the OCR’s purpose, Joun ruled, which infringes the APA and supports plaintiffs’ ultra vires claim.

Plaintiffs have shown that cutting the OCR would interfere with its ability to provide training and direct legal services for instances of sexual and gender-based violence, he said.

“Many students facing discrimination turn to OCR because they endure hostile environments, cannot access key services, miss out on classes or activities, or avoid school altogether,” the opinion says. “It is abundantly clear that because of the RIF, OCR will likely be unable to resolve student discrimination complaints in a timely and meaningful fashion, absent an injunction.”

The preliminary injunction orders the administration to file status reports to the court until the office is “restored to the status quo prior to January 20, 2025.”

Glenn Agre Bergman & Fuentes LLP and nonprofit attorneys from Public Justice represent the plaintiffs. Justice Department attorneys represent the Department of Education.

The case is Victim Rights Law Center v. United States Department of Education, D. Mass., No. 1:25-cv-11042, 6/18/25.