Share and Follow
US President Donald Trump arrives before signing the Laken Riley Act into law in the East Room at the White House in Washington on January 29, 2025 (Yuri Gripas/Abaca/Sipa USA/Sipa AP Images).
A federal judge in Rhode Island has determined that the Trump administration is in violation of a court order barring the federal government from implementing a policy that would freeze funding on distributions to federal grant programs.
U.S. District Judge John McConnell on Monday granted a “motion for enforcement,” ordering the administration to “immediately restore frozen funding” and “end any federal funding pause” during the pendency of the temporary restraining order he first issued on Jan. 31. In that order, the Barack Obama-appointed judge reasoned that the spending freeze was both unconstitutional and in violation of a federal law that blocks government action deemed “arbitrary and capricious.”
“The States have presented evidence in this motion that the Defendants in some cases have continued to improperly freeze federal funds and refused to resume disbursement of appropriated federal funds,” McConnell wrote in the five-page order. “The broad categorical and sweeping freeze of federal funds is, as the Court found, likely unconstitutional and has caused and continues to cause irreparable harm to a vast portion of this country. These pauses in funding violate the plain text of the TRO.”
The order came in response to a lawsuit filed by 23 Democratic state attorneys general, led by New York AG Letitia James.
The memo at the heart of the litigation — issued on Jan. 27, by the Office of Management and Budget — purported to make good on a series of executive orders issued by President Donald Trump outlining the administration’s spending priorities.
The memo required federal agencies to “pause all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance, and other relevant agency activities that may be implicated by the executive orders, including, but not limited to, financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal.”
The directive caused mass confusion throughout entities dependent on the federal government for funding as entire payment portals and websites went dark overnight. In response to the widespread panic and disorientation, the administration issued a terse directive rescinding the original memo
Despite the rescission, multiple lawsuits were filed claiming the administration was still enacting the measure and several judges, including McConnell, issued orders blocking the policy from taking effect.
However, the plaintiff states on Friday accused the administration of violating McConnell’s order, telling the court that since the TRO went into effect, there continued to be “an ever-changing kaleidoscope of federal financial assistance that has been suspended, deleted, in transit, under review, and more.”
The administration on Sunday pushed back, asserting it was taking every possible step to “assure compliance” with the court’s order and claiming that much of the delay in resuming funding was due to an “unusually large number of entities that attempted to draw down funds in PMS [the Payment Management System], with many recipients requesting larger-than-normal amounts, sometimes up to their full grant balance.”
Some 7,000 requests were subsequently flagged by the system as “unusual payment requests” which required further review, resulting in a “backlog,” the DOJ contended.
But McConnell was not swayed by the administration’s explanation.
“The Defendants now plea that they are just trying to root out fraud,” he wrote. “But the freezes in effect now were a result of the broad categorical order, not a specific finding of possible fraud.”
McConnell also took issue with Acting Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate’s assertion that McConnell’s TRO contained “several ambiguous terms and provisions” which Shumate claimed “could be read to constitute significant intrusions on the Executive Branch’s lawful authorities and the separation of powers.”
“The Court’s TRO is clear and unambiguous in its scope and effect, which is inconsistent with the Defendant’s interpretation,” McConnell wrote. “The Defendants must immediately restore withheld funds, including those federal funds appropriated in the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Improvement and Jobs Act.”
McConnell also ordered the administration to resume funding of “institutes and other agencies of the Defendant,” including the National Institute for Health.
