In April 2025, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to freeze federal education grants to universities and non-profits in 8 states, a move justified by allegations that certain programs were “discriminatory” due to their association with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Universities challenged the freeze, arguing it violated Congress’s constitutional power of the purse (Article I, Section 9) and the Impoundment Control Act. A federal district court sided with the universities, issuing an injunction to restore the funds, emphasizing that the executive cannot unilaterally withhold congressionally appropriated money without clear legal cause and that real, immediate harm would result from the freeze.
The administration appealed, and the Supreme Court’s conservative majority intervened, not on the merits of the underlying claims, but on a procedural point: the risk that, if the funds were distributed and the government later prevailed, it might not be able to recover the money. The Court accepted this hypothetical risk as sufficient to maintain the freeze, even though the administration presented no concrete evidence of harm or unlawful conduct.
The Logic of the Ruling: From Thin Reasoning to No Reasoning
Unlike typical emergency relief standards, which require a showing of actual, imminent harm and a likelihood of success on the merits, the majority’s logic dispensed with any substantive evidentiary bar. The government’s speculative assertion—that funds might be unrecoverable—was treated as equivalent to real, proven harm. In effect, fictional and actual harms became interchangeable in the eyes of the law.
To illustrate: imagine a plaintiff in a private lawsuit, with no evidence, asking the court to seize the defendant’s assets “just in case” they might win in the future and the defendant might be broke. In any normal context, such a request would be summarily rejected. Here, the executive branch was permitted to freeze billions in funding for public institutions on nothing more than a hypothetical.
This is not just a “thin” or “modest” procedural decision; it is the elimination of standards altogether. The phrase “there’s no there there” applies: the Court’s reasoning provided no substantive basis for such a drastic remedy, only a procedural fig leaf.
Addressing Counterarguments
Supporters of the ruling might argue that the administration’s claims were at least grounded in real legal frameworks, such as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act or executive orders. However, citing a legal category is not the same as providing evidence of a violation. In law, evidence means facts, documents, testimony, or other materials that substantiate a claim. The administration’s filings were allegations, not evidence. The Court did not examine or require discussion of any putative evidence, and the dissenting justices highlighted this absence.
Now, some argue this was just a procedural ruling-- an emergency stay, where courts often bend over backward to pause things while the case is sorted out. Fair enough. Emergency stays don't need ironclad proof; they just need a plausible risk of harm, like losing money you can't get back. But even in those cases you need something-- a fact, a number, a precedent -- to show the risk is real. The administration gave nothing. No data on how these grants would be spent. No evidene these universities were about to spend the money and vanish. Just a "what if" scenario, as flimsy as the hypothetical lawsuit I imagine above in which I just assert with no empirical support that the plaintiff in an unresolved case may become insolvent, and so the court should allow me to seize their assets. If I ask a judge to freeze a plaintiff's assets because they "might" go broke, I'd be expected to show that they are dodging bills or that their business is tanking. But here, the Supreme Court said, "Sure, unrecoverable funds-- sounds plausible enough!" to the administration's empty claim. That is NOT a low bar, it is no bar at all.
A Broader Pattern: Empowering the Executive to Override Laws and Rights
This decision is not an isolated incident. It is part of a growing set of Supreme Court rulings that, taken together, grant the president unprecedented authority to circumvent laws, constitutional protections, and congressional intent—especially in areas where large classes of people or institutions are at risk.
-
The Court’s new ban on universal (nationwide) injunctions, decided in June 2025, means that district courts can no longer block unlawful government policies for everyone affected—only for the named plaintiffs. This change makes it far easier for the executive to implement sweeping actions (such as defunding universities or mass deportations) with minimal judicial interference, even when large groups are in harm’s way.
-
Recent decisions have also granted presidents broad immunity for “official acts” and limited the judiciary’s ability to review or challenge presidential motives, further insulating executive action from legal accountability.
Implications: A Recipe for Arbitrary and Political Governance
The combined effect of these rulings is to give the president a near-unchecked power to run roughshod over the laws and the Constitution. By accepting hypothetical or fictional harms as grounds for freezing funds, and by limiting judicial remedies to only those directly before the court, the Supreme Court has enabled the executive to:
-
Freeze or withhold congressionally appropriated funds from any institution—public or private—on the thinnest of procedural grounds, bypassing Article I, Section 9.
-
Target disfavored universities, museums, or other entities for political reasons, with no need to provide evidence or individualized findings of wrongdoing.
-
Implement mass deportations or other large-scale policies with only minimal judicial oversight, as courts can now only protect the specific plaintiffs in a given case.
Conclusion: The Rule of Assertion Replaces the Rule of Law
The 2025 Supreme Court ruling on the university funding freeze is emblematic of a broader judicial trend: the replacement of the rule of law with the rule of executive assertion. No longer is the president required to show real evidence or face meaningful judicial scrutiny. So long as the executive can imagine a future harm, it can freeze funds or take drastic action at will—a Pandora’s box for arbitrary and politically motivated governance, with profound consequences for constitutional order and the protection of rights.