Two 2025 Supreme Court orders sent challenges to terminated federal grants toward the Court of Federal Claims. Mandamus cannot be used to get around that channeling.
When a federal agency terminates a grant, the recipient's first instinct is often to ask a district court to order the agency to restore it. Two orders of the Supreme Court in 2025 made that route much narrower, and they bear directly on whether mandamus or an APA claim is available at all.
Department of Education v. California
On April 4, 2025, in Department of Education v. California, the Court stayed a district court order requiring the government to pay out terminated teacher-training grants. In a per curiam order, it reasoned that the APA's limited waiver of sovereign immunity does not extend to orders to enforce a contractual obligation to pay money, and that the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), gives the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over claims founded on contracts with the United States.
NIH v. American Public Health Association
On August 21, 2025, in National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association, the Court divided the case in two. A majority stayed the district court's judgment vacating the terminations of specific research grants, following the reasoning of California. A different majority declined to stay the part of the judgment vacating the internal guidance that had directed the terminations. Justice Barrett's concurrence explained the split: challenges to the terminations themselves likely belong in the Court of Federal Claims, while challenges to agency guidance may proceed in district court, and vacating the guidance does not necessarily void the decisions made under it.
Why mandamus is not a way around the channeling
Mandamus requires the absence of another adequate remedy. Where Congress has provided a forum for money claims against the United States, a suit in that forum is the remedy, and a writ cannot be used to obtain what is in substance an order to pay. The mandamus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, creates jurisdiction but does not waive sovereign immunity for money claims, a point developed in Sovereign Immunity and Mandamus. The distinction drawn in Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (1988), between specific relief and money damages remains the starting point, but the 2025 orders show how the Court now applies it to grants.
What can still be pursued in district court
- Challenges to policy documents. Guidance or directives that operate as final agency action can be challenged under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), as in NIH.
- Delay in a required decision. Where a statute requires an agency to make a funding determination and it has not done so, a delay claim may lie, subject to the TRAC factors.
- Constitutional claims. These follow their own jurisdictional rules and were not resolved by the 2025 orders.
The boundary between these categories is fact-specific, and pleading a claim as the wrong one wastes months. For the related question of when declaratory relief suffices, see Mandamus vs. Declaratory Judgment: When Each Remedy Fits. The neighbouring problem of contract disputes is addressed in Mandamus in Federal Contracting Disputes.
Key points
- Department of Education v. California (April 4, 2025) stayed an order requiring payment of terminated grants, pointing to the Tucker Act.
- NIH v. APHA (August 21, 2025) sent challenges to specific grant terminations toward the Court of Federal Claims but left the vacatur of the underlying guidance in place.
- Mandamus cannot be used to obtain what is in substance an order to pay money.
- Policy documents that are final agency action can still be challenged in district court.
- Delay in a statutorily required funding decision may support a delay claim.
Links in this article to Mandamus.com point to the site of a law practice in the same network as this publication. They are identified here so that the reader can tell a publication from a practice before following them; see the editorial policy.