A broad alliance of educators, school districts, labor unions, and a national disability rights organization has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s latest effort to scale back the role of the U.S. Department of Education. The plaintiffs argue that the sweeping restructuring plan unveiled last week is both unlawful and a direct violation of congressional authority.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, targets the reforms announced by Education Secretary Linda McMahon. Under her direction, the department recently signed a series of interagency agreements that would shift major operational responsibilities—including the management of billions of dollars in federal education programs—to other departments within the federal government.

According to the coalition of plaintiffs, this maneuver contradicts the annual appropriations law passed by Congress, which explicitly tasks the Department of Education with executing and overseeing federal education programs. Their filing asserts that Secretary McMahon does not have the authority to outsource these core responsibilities to other agencies without congressional approval, regardless of administrative preferences.

In their amended complaint, the coalition described the department’s recent actions as inconsistent and destabilizing. They argued that the rapid policy changes have produced an atmosphere of uncertainty for educators, families, and state governments that rely on federal guidance. “The information and actions coming out of the Department have been unpredictable, chaotic, and unprofessional,” the complaint says. “This experience is unprecedented in administration changes.”

Officials inside the Education Department maintain that the agency’s actions are fully legal. They point to the Economy Act, a long-standing federal statute that allows government agencies to obtain services and support from other parts of the federal system. Under their interpretation, this law gives Secretary McMahon discretionary authority to transfer certain functions elsewhere if it improves efficiency or reduces costs.

The restructuring plan announced last week is extensive. Approximately $28 billion in federal funding designated for elementary and secondary education, along with an estimated $3 billion for postsecondary programs, would be shifted to the Department of Labor. Additional program management responsibilities would move to the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of State. The administration has framed these transfers as part of a broader effort to streamline federal education-related initiatives.

Madi Biedermann, a spokesperson for the Department of Education, pushed back on the lawsuit and its motivations. In a statement, she suggested that the coalition was more concerned with maintaining federal bureaucracy than improving services for families. “It’s no surprise that blue states and unions care more about preserving the D.C. bureaucracy than about giving parents, students, and teachers more control over education and improving the efficient delivery of funds and services,” she said.

President Trump has long signaled his intention to shut down the Department of Education entirely, arguing that states—not Washington—should have full authority over public education. However, despite repeated public announcements, he has not built significant support for this agenda on Capitol Hill. Even Republicans who control both chambers of Congress have shown little appetite for dismantling a federal department that plays a major role in funding, civil rights enforcement, and educational policy oversight.

Critics note that the administration’s strategy of transferring responsibilities to other agencies undermines its own stated goal of empowering states. By scattering education offices and programs across multiple federal departments, they argue, the changes could actually create more complexity for school districts and state leaders trying to navigate federal requirements.

Margaret Spellings, who served as education secretary under President George W. Bush, expressed concern that the restructuring would shift focus away from the needs of students. In a public statement, she argued that fragmenting education programs across agencies would increase administrative burdens and distract from urgent educational priorities. “These changes are also likely to make it much more complicated for states,” she said. “They distract us from the real and critical needs of students — and that’s where our focus needs to be.”

This week’s amended complaint is part of an ongoing legal battle that began in March, when several school districts and unions filed suit to block the administration’s earlier attempts to effectively dissolve the Education Department. Under federal law, the department can be eliminated only by Congress, not through executive action. The original lawsuit seeks to prevent the administration from using indirect methods—such as staff cuts or program transfers—to hollow out the agency.

U.S. District Judge Myong J. Joun initially issued an order temporarily preventing the administration from laying off more than a thousand department employees while the case proceeded. The judge noted that such layoffs could irreversibly damage the agency’s ability to carry out its statutory responsibilities. However, in July, the Supreme Court overturned that protective order, enabling the administration to move forward with reducing the department’s workforce by roughly half.

The coalition behind the lawsuit is extensive and represents a broad cross-section of the education community. The initial plaintiffs included the Somerville Public School Committee, the Easthampton School District, the American Federation of Teachers, AFT Massachusetts, AFSCME Council 93, the American Association of University Professors, and the Service Employees International Union. The legal team is supported by Democracy Forward, a nonprofit legal organization known for challenging federal policies it views as unlawful or harmful.

The coalition has since expanded to include the Arc of the United States, a prominent advocacy group for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The Arc argues that the administration’s restructuring could disrupt essential services for students with disabilities, who depend on federal oversight to ensure consistent access to specialized education programs across the country.

As the case moves ahead, it underscores a broader national debate about the future of federal education policy, the authority of executive agencies, and the balance of power between Washington and the states. While the administration maintains that its actions promote efficiency and reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, critics contend that the changes threaten the stability of a system that millions of students and educators rely on daily.

The federal court’s upcoming decisions could shape the structure of the Department of Education for years to come, determining whether the Trump administration’s dramatic reorganization moves forward or is halted in favor of maintaining the department’s traditional role. For now, the lawsuit represents one of the most significant challenges yet to the administration’s ambitious—and controversial—effort to redefine the federal government’s involvement in American education.