Case: Arlington School Board v. McMahon
1:25-cv-01434 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Filed Date: Aug. 29, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
The case is about Title IX rights for transgender students and the limits of federal power in coercing state and local school policies. On August 28, 2025, Arlington School Board (ASB) brought this action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq. (the APA) and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 against the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) and Secretary Linda McMahon. Previously, ASB allowed students to use bathrooms that aligned with their gender identity. Plaintiffs alleged that the Department withheld federal funding to coerce the school into changing this policy, which the Department claimed was in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Represented by private counsel, ASB filed this action in the Eastern District of Virginia seeking to vacate the Department's designation of ASB as "high-risk," as well as the Department's determination to freeze funds.
On September 5, 2025, the court denied ASB’s TRO and dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that jurisdiction appropriately lies with the Court of Federal Claims. The court reasoned that the requested relief would require ordering the payment of federal funds, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims pursuant to the Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. § 1491).
The court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Department of Education v. California, 145 S. Ct. 966 (2025), in which the Court held that "the APA’s limited waiver of [sovereign] immunity does not extend to orders to enforce a contractual obligation to pay money along the lines of what the District Court ordered here," and that the Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. § 1491) granted jurisdiction to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims for suits based on "any express or implied contract with the United States." The court also cited its decision in Sustainability Institute v. Trump, which previously applied California to stay an order requiring restoration of frozen grant funds.
Ruling that jurisdiction lies exclusively with the Court of Federal Claims, the district court denied the motions for injunctive relief and dismissed the complaints without prejudice so that ASB could refile in the proper forum.
On September 10, 2025, ASB appealed the court's order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and filed an emergency motion for injunctive relief pending appeal.
On October 1, 2025, the appellate court denied ASB motion for injunctive relief pending appeal. The order was entered at the direction of Chief Judge Diaz with the concurrence of Judge Richardson and Judge Rushing, and the judges provided no rationale for their decision. The following day, Plaintiffs moved to expedite the appeal.
The Fourth Circuit denied a motion to intervene by Major Mike Webb, a pro se litigant and former school-board candidate.
On October 10, the Fourth Circuit consolidated this case with Fairfax County School Board v. McMahon, and granted both Fairfax County’s and the Arlington School Board’s motions to expedite the appeal. It denied motions in both cases seeking to hold the appeals in abeyance and set an expedited briefing schedule.
Oral argument will take place in the Fourth Circuit on January 29, 2026.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Nicole Brigstock (12/17/2025)
Related Cases
Fairfax County School Board v. McMahon, Eastern District of Virginia (2025)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71230502/parties/arlington-school-board-v-mcmahon/
Alston, Rossie David (Virginia)
Attorney, Lindsey Halligan,
Attorney, Matthew James
Bird, Brenna
Block, Andrew John
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71230502/arlington-school-board-v-mcmahon/
Last updated April 20, 2026, 3:38 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Aug. 29, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiff ASB operates, maintains, and supervises APS, which is a school district within the Commonwealth of Virginia. APS is the independent branch of the Arlington County government that administers public schools in Arlington, Virginia.
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
U.S. Department of Education
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Other Dockets:
Eastern District of Virginia 1:25-cv-01434
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 25-02107
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Case Summary of Arlington School Board v. McMahon, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, http://www.dev.clearinghouse.net/case/46935/ (last updated 12/17/2025).