What's at stake:
In a Tuesday written order, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction to the City of Fresno and 10 other local jurisdictions in their lawsuit against the Trump administration’s threats to take federal funding away from local governments.
This story has been updated. Check out the latest news here.
Previous story below:
A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration late Tuesday, blocking it from yanking federal funding from the City of Fresno and several other local governments.
Fresno and the other plaintiffs in the lawsuit were expecting to receive hundreds of millions in federal grants approved by Congress. However, federal agencies under President Donald Trump have since used his executive orders to place new conditions on those same grants, and threatened to pull funding if local governments did not fall in line with them.
To do so would be “arbitrary and capricious, in excess of statutory authority, and contrary to the Constitution,” according to Chief District Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California. He issued a written order a few hours following a Tuesday afternoon court hearing.
“The coalition cities led by the City of Fresno welcome this ruling,” Fresno City Attorney Andrew Janz told Fresnoland late Tuesday. “At the end of the day, this has never been about partisan politics, but rather the preservation of Congressionally authorized funds for Housing and Airport funding allocated to Fresno.”
Seeborg’s preliminary injunction indefinitely blocks the Trump administration’s efforts to pull federal funding from the local governments involved in the lawsuit. The judge’s order applies to the following federal agencies:
- U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
- U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
- Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
- Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
- Federal Highway Administration (FHA)
One big point of tension in the lawsuit was over whether the president can unilaterally impose conditions on federal grants approved by Congress using his executive orders. According to the U.S. Constitution, only Congress has the power to set conditions on federal funding, not the president.
Just last month, the City of Fresno’s application for funding from the federal Community Development Block Grant program was rejected. More than $7 million in funding from the program was planned for city infrastructure and facility improvements, as well as to be distributed to seven Fresno nonprofits.
It’s unclear how or when those CDBG funds will be restored. However, Seeborg’s Tuesday ruling makes clear that federal agencies cannot place new conditions on federal funding based on the president’s executive orders.
It’s unclear what exactly will happen next. However, the lawsuit can proceed in at least two ways.
The attorneys representing the plaintiffs could file a motion seeking a permanent injunction, in which both sides will make more arguments in court.
The U.S. Department of Justice could also challenge the ruling and take the case to a federal appeals court.
It’s unclear whether the U.S. Department of Justice will appeal Tuesday’s ruling. Attorneys representing the plaintiffs and defendants were not immediately available for comment Tuesday evening.
Since the last court hearing, four new plaintiffs — all in California — joined the federal lawsuit. The following 11 local jurisdictions are now jointly suing the federal government in the lawsuit:
- City of Fresno (California)
- City of Eureka (California)
- City of South Lake Tahoe (California)
- County of Sacramento (California)
- City of Redwood City (California)
- County of Marin (California)
- County of San Diego (California)
- City of Alameda (California)
- City of Saint Paul (Minnesota)
- County of Monroe (New York)
- Monroe County Airport Authority (New York)
During the Tuesday afternoon court hearing, Seeborg heard arguments from both sides for about an hour.
At one point, he questioned how local governments are supposed to know what the Trump administration views as a violation of its executive orders, including the one banning DEI programs.
“Certainly the requirement to these plaintiffs is that they certify that the programs are free of DEI concerns, and one of their arguments is that’s completely vague, and they have no idea what they’re supposed to be doing in this instance,” Seeborg said. “Why isn’t that just across the board susceptible to a vagueness challenge? I mean, how are they supposed to know what the executive thinks that means?”
Comments are closed.