A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from conditioning billions of dollars in federal funding on compliance with anti-discrimination policies addressing issues related to gender identity, transgender athletes, illegal immigration, and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
U.S. District Judge Myong Joun on June 5 granted the preliminary injunction sought by over a dozen attorneys general from Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs had sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), arguing that it lacked authority to impose those requirements and threatened essential nutritional and agricultural programs.
Joun said he would issue a memorandum explaining his decision at a later date. By granting a preliminary injunction, the judge has temporarily blocked the USDA from enforcing the challenged provisions while the lawsuit proceeds.
The challenged conditions include prohibiting federal grant recipients from using funds to “promote gender ideology” and from directing funds towards programs that “deprive women and girls of fair athletic opportunities.”
The conditions that the plaintiffs object to also include prohibitions against directing federal funds towards programs that “allow illegal aliens to obtain taxpayer-funded benefits… or provide incentives for illegal immigration.”
The Democratic-led states argued in their March 23 complaint that the USDA had “thrown unconstitutional and unlawful roadblocks” between Congressionally-approved programs and States that rely on them for “critical nutrition support, vital agricultural research, and the safety of our national food chain and communities.”
The states said the conditions could jeopardize funding streams that support programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), school meal programs, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), agricultural research initiatives, and wildfire prevention efforts.
The USDA is broadly responsible for administering federal nutrition and agricultural programs, with the plaintiff states collectively receiving tens of billions of dollars annually through such initiatives.
USDA Defends Conditions
In court filings, government attorneys argued that the grant conditions were a lawful exercise of USDA authority and were designed to promote the “sound stewardship of taxpayer dollars,” strengthen oversight of federal funds, and ensure compliance with federal laws and administration policies.
The Trump administration also argued that the lawsuit was largely based on speculative harms because USDA had not yet applied the challenged conditions to major nutrition assistance programs such as SNAP, WIC, school lunch programs, and school breakfast programs.
“Plaintiffs do not claim that they have had to refuse—or will imminently have to refuse—any federal funding for these programs” due to the challenged conditions, government lawyers wrote in their opposition brief.
They also argued that the states have failed to show that they suffered any irreparable harm because no funding had actually been terminated and because any potential financial losses could be addressed through later legal remedies if the court finds that the Trump administration had wrongfully withheld funds.
Celebrating the judge’s decision, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell said in a social media post that the grants that are subject to the Trump administration’s conditions “are a lifeline” and that she would “always fight to protect food assistance for families.”
The USDA did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the decision.
Friday’s ruling is one of several court decisions addressing the Trump administration’s efforts to align federal funding with policy priorities laid out in executive orders issued since Trump returned to office.
Other Disputes Over Funding Conditions
The administration has faced a series of legal challenges over efforts to restrict federal funding connected to DEI initiatives and other programs it says conflict with federal policy.
Earlier this year, the same judge blocked the Department of Education from terminating a series of education grants that the administration said promoted DEI-related programs. In that case, Joun found that states challenging the grant cancellations were likely to succeed on claims that the administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to provide an adequate explanation for the terminations.
The Trump administration appealed, arguing that federal courts were improperly interfering with executive branch decisions about federal grants and contracts.
The Supreme Court later sided with the administration in that education grants dispute, allowing the government to continue withholding the grants while litigation proceeds. The high court said the federal government had shown it would likely suffer irreparable harm if forced to disburse funds that might never be recovered.
Sam Dorman and Reuters contributed to this report.
Friends Read Free
Copy
Facebook
Tweet
