A Federal judge on Friday heard arguments about whether to further block the Trump administration from freezing trillions of dollars in Federal grant and loan programs.
U.S. District Court Judge John McConnell in Rhode Island told nearly two dozen Democratic state attorneys generals and the Department of Justice (DoJ) that he would not make a final decision on whether to grant a preliminary injunction from the bench but would try to deliver a written decision sometime this week.
Until then, the already existing temporary restraining order (TRO) would remain in effect, McConnell said.
The hearing was in response to the Democratic state AGs’ request for a preliminary injunction following a ruling made by McConnell who found that the Trump administration likely violated the Constitution when it attempted to block trillions in Federal funding through a memo sent from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on Jan. 27. The memo – which aimed to defund programs that don’t align with Trump’s policy agenda – was rescinded by OMB after only two days.
States who filed the suit later claimed the Trump administration wasn’t complying with the TRO, and McConnell agreed while noting that Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) programs still faced cuts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston later denied the DoJ’s request to stay the order.
If granted, the preliminary injunction would be the first significant and sweeping block of the Trump administration’s attempt to freeze Federal funding as the administration battles several suits filed in different courts related to the freeze – which has so far resulted in a few TROs.
Arguments made in the hearing from the plaintiffs centered around the “irreparable harm” that would be caused by the mass funding freeze, with Rabia Muqaddam, Special Counsel for Federal Initiatives for the New York Attorney General, calling it a “textbook separation of powers issue” in her arguments on the administration’s halt on funds appropriated by Congress.
DoJ attorney Daniel Schwei defended the freeze as within the president’s authority, arguing the original order told agencies to halt funding if a “discretion to pause” existed. He added that the freeze aligns with the Constitution, which grants the president control over subordinate agencies.
Schwei also fielded skeptical questions from McConnell throughout the hearing, with McConnell at one point asking him, “where does the president’s power to issue that kind of categorical freeze come from?”
The judge also later noted that “the fundamentals here [are] how you can argue that you’re now complying with the constitutional requirement, that you abide by the power to you in a specific statute, when in fact, the only evidence that’s before me is that you’re not.”
