Tennessee files lawsuit against US Education Department over Hispanic-serving college grants
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, in partnership with the conservative legal group Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), has filed a federal lawsuit against the US Department of Education, challenging a grant programme that allocates federal funding to colleges where Hispanic students comprise at least 25% of the student population.The legal challenge, filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, contends that the federal programme unlawfully discriminates based on ethnicity and exceeds Congress’s constitutional authority.
Federal grants under fire for ethnicity-based criteria
At issue is the Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI) programme, established under Titles III and V of the Higher Education Act. Designed to bolster institutions with substantial Hispanic enrollment, the programme funds academic development, STEM tutoring, infrastructure improvement, and student support services. In FY 2024 alone, Congress appropriated over $228.9 million for the Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions subprogramme.The plaintiffs argue that the programme’s eligibility criteria exclude institutions, such as many in Tennessee, that serve Hispanic students but do not meet the federal enrollment threshold. According to the complaint, this results in an unconstitutional barrier that penalises schools for their racial and ethnic composition.
“Un-American and unconstitutional”: Skrmetti criticises federal policy
In a statement accompanying the lawsuit, Skrmetti denounced the grant structure, calling it a violation of the nation’s foundational principles.“A federal grant system that openly discriminates against students based on ethnicity isn’t just wrong and un-American—it’s unconstitutional,” Skrmetti said to Associated Press.The Department of Education has not yet commented on the case or the allegations raised.
Echoes of Supreme Court’s affirmative action ruling
The lawsuit follows the precedent set by the US Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and UNC, in which the court struck down race-conscious admissions policies. SFFA, led by Edward Blum, was the driving force behind those cases and has since pursued multiple legal actions targeting diversity-based criteria across sectors.The current suit cites the same constitutional principles, namely, equal protection under the Fifth Amendment, and challenges the legitimacy of using ethnicity as a condition for federal funding.
Part of a broader Anti-DEI legal movement
The case aligns with broader conservative efforts to dismantle programmes that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), which opponents claim institutionalise race-based preferences. These efforts gained significant momentum during President Donald Trump’s administration and continue to shape the national legal and political discourse.The lawsuit asserts that by conditioning funding on racial demographics, Congress has exceeded its spending powers and instituted a system of racial preference incompatible with constitutional mandates.
Legal representation and case details
The case, officially titled State of Tennessee v. US Department of Education (No. 3:25-cv-270), is being argued by a prominent team of conservative litigators: Thomas McCarthy and Cameron Norris of Consovoy McCarthy, Adam Mortara of Lawfair, and Aaron Bernard of the Tennessee Attorney General’s Office.If successful, the lawsuit could have sweeping implications for how federal funding is distributed to higher education institutions across the country, potentially curtailing ethnicity-based support mechanisms that have been in place for decades.
