April 6, 2025

While not completely on point, the article (below) speaks to the tactics being used by the Trump Administration to implement its policy goals to include suppressing and cancelling work being performed by grantees (in this case the focus is on teacher-training grants) to increase diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.  It also points to Trump Administration tactics that seem to be focused on ways to exploit loopholes and challenge other funding sources such as federal grants that, when terminated, increases the Administration’s ability to deliver massive tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. This does not bode well for federal grants in general, as we recently experienced with the termination of several critical federal block grant supplemental programs on 3/24.  And while a federal judge in Rhode Island has temporarily restrained the Administration from following through on the 3/24/25 CMHS and SUPTR Supplemental Block Grant rescission, the Administration is counting on the higher courts to uphold these terminations.  The example in the article below is one of the first Supreme Court rulings to do so. 

SAMHSA CCBHC Grants
The focus on grants is of course concerning.  Several years ago SAMHSA missed a deadline for promulgating the next in a series of SAMHSA CCBHC grant RFPs for agencies that needed to apply for continued funding to support their efforts to provide CCBHC services through the grant program.  The disruption left many grantees in the lurch having spent the funds they were required to spend, threatening the significant investments already made, and putting access to care in jeopardy.  In the end the SAMHSA RFP went out 3 months late.  After some intense advocacy performed by the NYS Council, we were able to secure $750,000 from Senator Schumer who worked aggressively to deliver bridge funds to keep impacted agencies from falling through the cracks.  But that fight was not easy, the state did not feel obligated to step in, and I suspect problems like this will be more difficult to resolve in the future.  

The Trump Administration is aware of the bipartisan approach the National Council took to establish the CCBHC Demo Program in 2017, and the Administration demonstrated support for the Program during the first Trump administration, but (as you know) there are no guarantees for the future of the SAMHSA CCBHC grant program.  

NYS CCBHC Demo Program
The Trump Administration is aware of the bipartisan approach the National Council took to establish the CCBHC Demo Program in 2017.  It is also true that the first Trump Administration was generally supportive of the Program.  The federal CCBHC Demonstration Program established in the Excellence in Mental Health Act enacted in 2017, is set to expire on September 30, 2025, and the National Council is not currently working to extend the Demo.  Instead it has been working for many years, state by state, to compel state leaders to bring the CCBHC Demo services into the states Medicaid Plan. New York State is working on a SPA request to CMS seeking approval to do this. One of the problems here is that the massive layoffs at HHS and SAMHSA will likely slow CMS SPA approvals in general.  But the primary risk to the future of the NYS CCBHC Demo Program and the SAMHSA grants as they are currently configured is directly related to the magnitude of any cuts to the federal Medicaid Program that translate into state Medicaid rate reductions.  Understanding all of this, the NYS Council has been pushing New York State leaders to remain committed to the current PPS rate formula, to the investment government has made in the CCBHC grant program, and more generally, to Medicaid reimbursement rates that (while inadequate in many instances) are the difference between continued viability and disaster for care recipients and providers.  

For well over a year now, we have been formally weighing in with both state agencies, the DoH, the Governor’s Office and state lawmakers regarding the necessity for the state to remain committed to the two CCBHC Programs in NYS, and to the PPS rate methodology for Demo agencies despite its shortcomings.  We have made it clear that we will not stand for the CCBHC Demo Program reimbursement method to change such that reimbursement rates are walked back, or where services and payment is managed by MCOs.  (For those that don’t know, Demo services are currently carved out and reimbursed through FFS Medicaid).  While I’m told there is a commitment at the state level to refrain from folding additional MH and SUD services into the state’s MMC program, there’s certainly nothing in writing and this is one more reason why we MUST carve out most BH services from the state’s Medicaid managed care program. 

Given the advocacy we performed in 2016-2017 that persuaded NYS to apply to become one of eight original CCBHC Demo states, our subsequent leadership and intense advocacy (to include a financial analysis prepared for us by HMA) that persuaded the state to expand the CCBHC Demo Program, and our work to protect SAMHSA CCBHC grant projects over the years, the NYS Council is best positioned to fight for the future of these programs and services and we are.  

On a related note, here’s a partial list of what we’ve got cooking right now as state budget negotiations continue:

• NYS Council was the first to call for two Contingency Fund to be included in the state budget to mitigate current and future funding threats 
• Advocacy for a flexible 7.8% increase (Targeted Inflationary Increase) for all human service agencies beginning with mental health and substance use disorder providers
• OMIG Audit Reform (we are shooting for enactment of bill language as part of new state budget being negotiated at the present time)
• Request for a $200M appropriation in new state budget to increase rates for clinic, HCBS and CFTSS services for providers serving children, youth and families
• Set aside of 25% of proceeds from MCO Tax for MH and SUD

More to follow.
——————–

Supreme Court Lets Trump Suspend Grants to Teachers

The justices let the Trump administration temporarily suspend $65 million in teacher-training grants that the government contends would promote diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. The ruling was an early victory for the administration.

New York Times, 4/5/25

The Supreme Court on Friday let the Trump administration temporarily suspend $65 million in teacher-training grants that the government contends would promote diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, an early victory for the administration in front of the justices.

The court’s order was unsigned, which is typical when the justices act on emergency applications. The temporary pause will remain in effect while the case is appealed.

The decision was 5 to 4, with five of the court’s conservatives — Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Brett M. Kavanaugh — in the majority. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. voted with the court’s three liberal justices in dissent.

The order came in response to one of a series of emergency requests by the Trump administration asking the justices to intervene and overturn lower court rulings that have temporarily blocked parts of President Trump’s agenda.

The grants at issue in the case helped place teachers in poor and rural areas and aimed to recruit a diverse work force reflecting the communities it served.

In February, the Education Department sent grant recipients boilerplate form letters ending the funding, saying the programs “fail to serve the best interests of the United States” by taking account of factors other than “merit, fairness and excellence,” and by allowing waste and fraud.

Eight states, including California and New York, sued to stop the cuts, arguing that they would undermine both urban and rural school districts, requiring them to hire “long-term substitutes, teachers with emergency credentials and unlicensed teachers on waivers.”

Judge Myong J. Joun of the Federal District Court in Massachusetts temporarily ordered the grants to remain available while he considered the lawsuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Boston, rejected a request from the Trump administration to undo Judge Joun’s order, saying the government’s arguments were based on “speculation and hyperbole.”

In temporarily blocking the cancellation of the grants, Judge Joun said that he sought to maintain the status quo. He wrote that if he failed to do so, “dozens of programs upon which public schools, public universities, students, teachers and faculty rely will be gutted.” On the other hand, he reasoned, if he did pause the Trump administration action, the groups would merely continue to receive funds that had been appropriated by Congress.

In its brief order, the court said that the challengers had “not refuted” the Trump administration’s claim that “it is unlikely to recover the grant funds once they are disbursed.” By contrast, the order stated, “the government compellingly argues that respondents would not suffer irreparable harm” while the grants are paused. The court said it had relied on statements by the challengers that “they have the financial wherewithal to keep their programs running.”

In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, countered that allowing the grants to be terminated would “inflict significant harm on grantees — a fact that the government barely contests.”

She added: “Worse still, the government does not even deign to defend the lawfulness of its actions.”

In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the teacher training efforts would be harmed by the court’s action.

“States have consistently represented that the loss of these grants will force them — indeed, has already forced them — to curtail teacher training programs,” she wrote.

When the Trump Administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene, Sarah M. Harris, the acting Solicitor General wrote in an emergency application that Judge Joun’s order was one of many lower court rulings thwarting government initiatives. 

“The aim is clear: to stop the executive branch in its tracks and prevent the administration from changing direction on hundreds of billions of dollars of government largesse that the executive branch considers contrary to the United States’ interests and fiscal health,” she wrote.

She added: “Only this court can right the ship — and the time to do so is now.”

In response, the states said that the justices should decide one dispute at a time.

The brief added that the cancellation of the grants had not been accompanied by reasoning specific to each grant. The boilerplate letters, it said, “did not explain how the grant-funded programs engaged in any of the purportedly disqualifying activities.