Washington — A federal judge in Rhode Island temporarily blocked the Trump administration from freezing federal assistance after a group of 22 states and the District of Columbia challenged a memo from the White House budget office ordering a pause of federal funding.
U.S. District Chief Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island on Friday granted the request for a temporary restraining order sought by the Democrat-led states, which had argued that the actions from the Office of Management and Budget violated federal law and the Constitution.
McConnell’s order was expected, as he had signaled following a hearing Wednesday that he was inclined to issue the temporary pause of the Trump administration’s directive. The judge said in his decision that the Office of Management and Budget’s actions are likely unconstitutional and violate federal law.
“Are there some aspects of the pause that might be legal and appropriate constitutionally for the Executive to take? The court imagines there are, but it is equally sure that there are many instances in the Executive Orders’ wide-ranging, all-encompassing, and ambiguous ‘pause’ of critical funding that are not,” McConnell found.
The judge wrote that the budget office did not cite any legal authority that allowed it to unilaterally suspend the flow of federal funds to states and other entities and said “no federal law would authorize the executive’s unilateral action here.”
“The states have set forth facts showing that the executive’s abrupt ‘pause’ in potentially trillions of dollars of federal funding will cause a ripple effect that would directly impact the states and other’s ability to provide and administer vital services and relief to their citizens,” McConnell wrote.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is part of the lawsuit, cheered the court’s order and said the president cannot unilaterally stop congressional spending commitments.
“This administration’s reckless plan to block federal funding has already caused chaos, confusion, and conflict throughout our country,” she said in a statement. “In the short time since this policy was announced, families have been cut off from childcare services, essential Medicaid funds were disrupted, and critical law enforcement efforts were put in jeopardy.”
The Democrat-led states filed their lawsuit earlier this week in response to a memo from the Office of Management and Budget that ordered agencies to temporarily pause “to the extent permitted by law” grant, loan or federal financial assistance programs that were implicated by Mr. Trump’s executive orders. The executive orders listed include those involving immigration, energy, diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, programs, and gender ideology.
The memo was issued by Matthew Vaeth, acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, who said the freeze was set to take effect by 5 p.m. Tuesday. Its full scope was not clear and sparked confusion and chaos around the country as states and nonprofits scrambled to determine whether they would be affected. Lawmakers, too, fielded calls from constituents and organizations in their states seeking answers about whether they would be cut off from federal dollars.
The memo also prompted immediate legal action from the Democrat-led states and a group of nonprofit organizations, who filed a separate challenge in Washington, D.C. A federal judge there swiftly convened a hearing on a request from the nonprofits to temporarily block enforcement of the freeze, and agreed Tuesday to issue a brief pause to fully consider the matter.
One day later, the Office of Management and Budget issued a new, two-line memo saying that the earlier directive had been rescinded.
But questions continued to arise after White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said that only the budget office’s memo had been walked back and the broader halting of federal assistance would remain in effect.
“This is NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze. It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo,” she wrote on social media Wednesday. “Why? To end any confusion created by the court’s injunction. The president’s EO’s on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented.”
Following Leavitt’s post, the Justice Department argued that the matter before McConnell was moot. But the judge said in his order that “the evidence shows that the alleged rescission of the OMB Directive was in name-only and may have been issued simply to defeat the jurisdiction of the court.”
“The substantive effect of the directive carries on,” he wrote. “Messaging from the White House and agencies proves this point.”
