The McKinleyville Union School District has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education, alleging that the abrupt termination of its federal mental health grant was unlawful. The district joins a growing number of schools confronting sudden funding withdrawals, though it is the first in California to take legal action independently, EdSource reports.The dispute centres on a $6 million, five-year grant designed to expand mental health support for students across the district. In April, the Department of Education notified McKinleyville Union, alongside 48 other recipients in California, that approximately $168 million in remaining funds for school-based mental health services would be cancelled. Without the grant, schools face the imminent loss of counsellors, social workers, and mental health staff scheduled to support students until the end of the year.
Funding gaps in high-need communities
Humboldt County, where McKinleyville Union is located, faces particularly acute challenges. Roughly 58% of local youth have experienced traumatic events, including abuse and homelessness, and more than one in five high school students have contemplated suicide. Native American students, who represent a significant portion of the population, report some of the highest suicide rates in the state. Poverty and lack of access to healthcare amplify the risks, EdSource reports.Prior to receiving the federal grant, the district had only one school counsellor for 850 students across three campuses serving transitional kindergarten through eighth grade. The funding allowed the district to hire five additional counsellors, enabling them to conduct screenings, provide crisis intervention, and offer ongoing support for students who otherwise would have to travel hours for mental health services.
Federal policy shift leaves district excluded
The lawsuit highlights a broader policy shift under the Trump administration. In September, officials announced a pared-down version of the school-based mental health grant program. New criteria required districts to reapply and excluded funds for social workers and school counsellors. McKinleyville Union, with its smaller student population, no longer qualified for the revised grant structure.Without reinstatement, the district faces a stark reality: students may not have timely access to mental health services in crisis situations. The risk is compounded by existing delays in the county’s behavioural health system, which has a waitlist of at least two months for children requiring immediate care. Local social services agencies, already operating with minimal staff, lack the capacity to absorb the additional demand, according to EdSource.
The stakes for students
The stakes are not abstract. In 2019, McKinleyville High School experienced a student suicide, underscoring the critical role of school-based mental health support, EdSource reports. The federal grant enabled proactive interventions that have since become central to the district’s approach to student well-being. Teachers are now equipped to identify at-risk students, and counsellors can provide immediate, trusted support within the school setting, a system that cannot be replicated through external providers alone.By seeking legal recourse, McKinleyville Union is positioning itself at the forefront of a larger debate over the administration of federal education funds and the prioritisation of mental health in schools. EdSource reports that the outcome of this case could influence policy decisions affecting hundreds of other districts facing similar funding cuts.
A critical test for federal support
The lawsuit reflects a growing tension between federal policy shifts and the needs of high-poverty, rural communities. McKinleyville Union’s case highlights how targeted federal investment in mental health services can have transformative impacts, particularly for vulnerable student populations. Without sustained funding, schools risk leaving some students without access to the very services that could be life-saving.For McKinleyville Union, the legal challenge is not simply about dollars; it is about preserving a system of care that has become indispensable to the community. As the court evaluates the claim, the broader question remains: Can federal policy adequately address the mental health needs of the nation’s most vulnerable students?
