Editorial Note
This article is intended for educational and informational purposes only. It does not provide legal, medical, psychological, crisis-intervention, or mental-health treatment advice.
The lawsuit contains allegations that have not yet received a final judicial ruling. The federal government may dispute New York’s description of the grant decisions and retains the right to present its legal defenses.
Anyone experiencing an immediate mental-health crisis or danger should contact emergency services or an appropriate crisis-support provider.
New York is returning to federal court over funding intended to place more mental-health professionals in American schools.
On July 10, 2026, New York Attorney General Letitia James joined 14 other state attorneys general in suing the U.S. Department of Education and Education Secretary Linda McMahon. The states are challenging the department’s latest attempt to terminate grants supporting school counselors, psychologists, social workers, and other credentialed mental-health providers.
The dispute is particularly significant because the states previously challenged an earlier attempt to end funding under the same two federal programs—and won.
According to New York’s complaint, the Department of Education is now trying to accomplish essentially the same result by describing the action as a “termination” rather than a “discontinuation.”
The difference may sound like technical legal wording.
For schools, however, it could determine whether established mental-health programs continue operating, trained professionals remain employed, and thousands of students retain access to counseling and behavioral support.
What the New York Lawsuit Challenges
The lawsuit concerns two federal programs: the School-Based Mental Health Services Grant Program and the Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program.
The School-Based Mental Health program provides grants to state and local education agencies to increase the number of credentialed mental-health providers working in high-need schools.
The Mental Health Service Professional program supports partnerships that recruit and train future school psychologists, counselors, social workers, and other professionals for employment in schools and local education agencies.
Congress created and expanded these programs in response to concerns about the youth mental-health crisis, shortages of qualified providers, and deadly school shootings including those in Parkland, Florida, and Uvalde, Texas.
The programs were designed as multiyear initiatives. Schools, universities, districts, and state agencies planned staffing, training, and services around the expectation that approved federal funding would continue for the grant period.
New York and the other states argue that the Department of Education cannot abruptly terminate those awards based on new policy preferences that were not included in the original grant requirements.
This Is the Second Legal Fight Over the Grants
The current lawsuit follows an earlier case filed in 2025.
In that dispute, the Department of Education moved to discontinue more than $1 billion in previously awarded school mental-health funding. Federal officials reportedly objected to aspects of certain grants connected to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
New York and a coalition of states argued that the department had relied on unpublished priorities rather than the criteria Congress and the agency established when the grants were awarded.
In December 2025, the states secured a permanent injunction blocking the department’s earlier action.
The ruling prevented the department from using its new priorities to discontinue the protected grants.
The Department of Education subsequently provided approximately six months of additional funding. It later indicated that some or all of the same grants could be terminated as early as July 31, 2026.
New York argues that this new approach is an attempt to evade the earlier court order.
The states’ position is straightforward: changing the label attached to the action does not make an otherwise unlawful funding decision legal.
The Meaning of “Discontinue” Versus “Terminate”
The legal dispute may turn partly on the distinction between two words.
The earlier injunction addressed the department’s decision to discontinue the grants. The federal government now appears to argue that it possesses separate authority to terminate them.
In ordinary conversation, those words may appear nearly interchangeable.
In federal grants administration, different terms can carry distinct legal consequences. A grant may end naturally when its approved period expires. An agency may decide not to continue funding into another budget period. It may also attempt to terminate an award before completion for reasons permitted by law or the applicable grant agreement.
New York argues that the department cannot use terminology as a loophole.
According to the attorneys general, the underlying policy remains the same: federal officials are trying to end previously approved grants based on new criteria that were not properly established when the awards were made.
The court will need to examine the earlier injunction, federal grant regulations, the terms of the awards, and the department’s claimed termination authority.
New York Says at Least $19 Million Is at Risk
The New York Attorney General’s Office says the state could lose at least $19 million in previously approved federal funding.
That includes more than $7.6 million connected to the State University of New York system.
SUNY Binghamton could reportedly be forced to remove mental-health professionals from schools serving more than 9,000 rural students. The funding loss could also result in layoffs affecting full-time employees, part-time staff, and graduate assistants.
SUNY Buffalo could lose support for a fellowship program that prepares school social workers to serve students in Western New York. State officials estimate that approximately 3,000 students could be affected.
The threatened funding also reaches beyond the SUNY system.
Schools and institutions serving students in the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Long Island, the Hudson Valley, Central New York, the Finger Lakes, and the Mohawk Valley could experience disruptions.
The exact consequences would vary by grant recipient. Some programs might reduce staffing, end training partnerships, limit services, or seek replacement funding from state and local budgets.
Why Schools Rely on Federal Mental-Health Grants
Many schools want to provide stronger mental-health support but cannot recruit or afford enough qualified professionals.
School psychologists, counselors, and social workers require specialized education, supervised experience, and professional credentials. Training new providers takes time.
Rural communities may have especially limited access because qualified professionals are concentrated in larger cities or can earn more in private practice and health-care settings.
Low-income school districts may face a similar problem. The students may have significant needs, but the district has fewer local resources available to hire additional staff.
The federal grant programs attempt to address both sides of the shortage.
One program helps schools hire and retain existing professionals. The other helps create a larger workforce by supporting training partnerships between school systems and higher-education institutions.
The Department of Education describes the School-Based Mental Health program as a way to increase the number of credentialed providers serving students in local education agencies with demonstrated need.
Its professional demonstration program supports partnerships that train providers specifically for employment in schools.
These are therefore not simply short-term counseling grants.
They are intended to build a sustainable workforce pipeline.
New York Points to Early Program Results
The New York Attorney General’s Office says the programs demonstrated substantial early results.
According to the state, nearly 775,000 students received mental or behavioral-health services during the first year. More than 1,200 professionals were hired, and 95 percent were retained.
New York also says grantees reported an 80 percent reduction in student waiting times, lower absenteeism and behavioral incidents, stronger relationships between students and staff, and reductions in reported suicide risk in participating high-need schools.
These figures come from the states’ description of grantee results and will likely form part of their argument that terminating the grants would cause concrete harm.
However, program success alone does not decide the legal case.
A program can be beneficial while an agency still possesses lawful authority to alter or terminate particular grants. Conversely, dissatisfaction with grant content does not automatically give an agency authority to disregard statutes, regulations, award terms, or an existing injunction.
The court must decide whether the department followed the law.
The Administrative Procedure Act Is Central
New York alleges that the department’s actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act.
The APA governs how federal agencies create rules and make many administrative decisions. Courts can set aside agency actions that are arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, procedurally defective, or outside the agency’s authority.
The states argue that the Education Department adopted new funding priorities without appropriate public procedures and then attempted to apply them to grants that had already been approved.
They also allege that the department is punishing grant recipients for including equity-related language that Congress or the original grant process required.
The federal government may argue that grant awards remain subject to statutory and regulatory termination provisions, that recipients must continue satisfying applicable conditions, and that the department is exercising lawful oversight rather than rewriting the grants.
The judge will need to determine what authority Congress gave the department and whether that authority was exercised properly.
Congressional Authority Is Also at Issue
Federal agencies administer programs, but Congress creates and funds them.
Congress appropriated more than $100 million annually for each of the two school mental-health programs through 2026 following the Uvalde school shooting.
The planned investment was intended to help place thousands of additional mental-health professionals in schools.
New York argues that the executive branch cannot undermine that congressional decision by imposing new ideological conditions after grants have been awarded.
This raises a separation-of-powers question.
Federal agencies possess discretion in administering grants, evaluating compliance, and protecting public funds. That discretion is not unlimited. Agencies generally must remain within the laws, appropriations, regulations, and grant terms governing the program.
When an agency’s priorities change after a presidential administration changes, existing grant recipients can become caught between the policies of two governments.
Courts then must decide whether the new administration is making a permissible policy change or unlawfully altering commitments already established by Congress and the agency.
Why the Lawsuit Is an Educational Law Story
The case is not only about mental-health policy.
It concerns the legal relationship among Congress, federal agencies, states, universities, and local school systems.
The lawsuit raises questions about administrative law, federal grant regulations, separation of powers, court injunctions, and the government’s obligations after it awards multiyear funding.
It also involves reliance.
Grant recipients hired employees, created training programs, established partnerships, and began serving students based on federal awards. Ending the money before the expected completion date could leave schools responsible for programs they cannot afford to sustain.
The legal system must determine whether that reliance creates enforceable protections under the grants and applicable regulations.
What Happens if New York Wins
The coalition is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.
A preliminary injunction could prevent the Department of Education from terminating the disputed grants while the case proceeds.
To obtain that relief, the states generally must persuade the court that they are likely to succeed, that irreparable harm may occur without an injunction, and that the balance of interests supports temporary protection.
A permanent injunction could ultimately prohibit the department from using the challenged policy to terminate the grants.
Winning would not necessarily guarantee that every recipient receives every requested dollar indefinitely.
Grantees would still need to comply with legitimate program requirements, reporting obligations, performance standards, and the lawful terms of their awards.
The decision would instead limit the department’s ability to end funding through the particular approach challenged by the states.
What Happens if the Federal Government Wins
If the Department of Education prevails, some grants could end as early as the department’s announced termination dates.
Recipients might need to lay off staff, reduce counseling, end student-service programs, or find funding elsewhere.
Universities could also scale back programs that train future school mental-health professionals.
States and districts might attempt to replace the lost federal money, but not every community has the resources to do so.
A federal victory could also strengthen the authority of future administrations to reevaluate ongoing grants when their priorities change, provided they follow the applicable laws and award conditions.
That possibility would extend beyond education.
Organizations receiving multiyear federal grants in health, housing, research, workforce development, and social services would have a strong interest in how the court interprets agency termination authority.
The Lawsuit Does Not Guarantee Services for Every Student
Even if the states win, significant student mental-health challenges will remain.
Federal grants can add professionals and reduce waiting times, but they cannot solve nationwide shortages alone.
Schools may still struggle with high caseloads, staff burnout, limited referral options, insurance barriers, family concerns, and shortages of community-based treatment.
School professionals also serve different roles.
A counselor supporting academic planning cannot always provide intensive clinical therapy. A school psychologist may spend significant time evaluating students for special-education services. Social workers may divide their attention among attendance, family support, crisis response, and community referrals.
Funding must therefore be paired with realistic staffing plans, professional supervision, privacy protections, and clear boundaries around what school-based services can provide.
Key Takeaways
New York Attorney General Letitia James filed the lawsuit on July 10, 2026, alongside attorneys general from 14 other states.
The case challenges another attempt by the U.S. Department of Education to end previously awarded school mental-health grants.
The two disputed programs help schools hire providers and create partnerships that train future school mental-health professionals.
The states previously won a permanent injunction against an earlier federal effort to discontinue the grants.
New York argues that the department is now trying to evade that order by calling the new action a termination.
At least $19 million in previously approved funding could be lost in New York, including more than $7.6 million affecting SUNY programs.
The lawsuit alleges violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, federal grant regulations, congressional authority, and the earlier court order.
The states are seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions preventing the funding cuts.
Frequently Asked Questions
When was the New York school mental-health funding lawsuit filed?
The new lawsuit was announced on July 10, 2026. It remained a developing educational-law story during the following week.
Who filed the lawsuit?
New York Attorney General Letitia James joined attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin.
Which federal programs are involved?
The lawsuit involves the School-Based Mental Health Services Grant Program and the Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program.
What do the programs fund?
They support the recruitment, training, hiring, and retention of school psychologists, counselors, social workers, and other credentialed mental-health professionals.
How much could New York lose?
The New York Attorney General’s Office estimates that the state could lose at least $19 million in approved funding.
Did New York already sue over these grants?
Yes. New York and other states challenged an earlier attempt to discontinue the grants and secured a permanent injunction in December 2025.
Has the court ruled on the new lawsuit?
Not at the time of publication. The claims remain allegations pending judicial review.
Final Thoughts
The New York lawsuit presents a question larger than whether one presidential administration supports a particular grant program.
It asks whether the federal government must honor the rules and commitments under which schools, universities, and states accepted multiyear awards.
Administrations are entitled to establish new priorities.
They are not necessarily entitled to rewrite previous grants retroactively, disregard congressional funding decisions, or avoid an existing court order through a change in terminology.
At the same time, courts must distinguish between an unlawful attempt to evade legal limits and an agency’s legitimate authority to enforce grant conditions.
The students affected by this dispute are far removed from those technical arguments.
For them, the outcome may determine whether a counselor remains at school, whether a social-work fellowship continues, or whether a rural district can offer support without months of waiting.
That is why this lawsuit belongs within educational law.
The case concerns statutes, regulations, agency authority, and injunctions but its consequences will be measured in the services students can actually receive.
Related Articles
National School Counselor Conference Opens as American Schools Face Growing Student-Support Demands
California Student IDs Will Now Carry Mental-Health Lifeline Information
Support New To Education
New To Education publishes educational-law coverage, education-policy analysis, health research, student-support information, and practical resources for educators, families, professionals, and communities.
Readers who value this work can support New To Education through the donation area below. Each contribution helps us continue producing accessible reporting and explaining how government decisions may affect schools and students.
Sources
U.S. Department of Education — School-Based Mental Health Services Grant Program
U.S. Department of Education — Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program
U.S. Department of Education — Safe and Supportive Schools
New York Attorney General — Earlier Lawsuit Challenging School Mental-Health Funding Cuts
New York Attorney General — Court Victory Protecting Youth Mental-Health Services
