\n<\/p>\n
\t<\/p>\n
Plaintiff<\/small> Council for Opportunity in Education<\/p>\n
Defendant<\/small> U.S. Department of Education<\/p>\n
Filed in the District of Columbia on Oct. 14, 2025<\/small> <\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Injunction<\/small><\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
Plaintiff<\/small> Dallas County, Tex.<\/p>\n
Defendant<\/small> Kennedy<\/p>\n
Filed in the District of Columbia on Dec. 5, 2025<\/small> <\/p>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
Plaintiff<\/small> Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence<\/p>\n
Defendant<\/small> Kennedy Jr.<\/p>\n
Filed in the District of Rhode Island on July 21, 2025<\/small> <\/p>\n<\/div>\n
injunction<\/small><\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
Plaintiff<\/small> Colorado<\/p>\n
Defendant<\/small> Department of Health and Human Services<\/p>\n
Filed in the District of Rhode Island on April 1, 2025<\/small> <\/p>\n<\/div>\n
injunction<\/small><\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
Plaintiff<\/small> Housing Authority of the County of San Diego<\/p>\n
Defendant<\/small> Turner<\/p>\n
Filed in the Northern District of California on Oct. 15, 2025<\/small> <\/p>\n<\/div>\n
injunction<\/small><\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
Plaintiff<\/small> National Alliance to End Homelessness<\/p>\n
Defendant<\/small> Department of Housing and Urban Development<\/p>\n
Filed in the District of Rhode Island on Dec. 1, 2025<\/small> <\/p>\n<\/div>\n
injunction<\/small><\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
Plaintiff<\/small> Washington<\/p>\n
Defendant<\/small> Federal Emergency Management Agency<\/p>\n
Filed in the District of Massachusetts on July 16, 2025<\/small> <\/p>\n<\/div>\n
lost<\/small><\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
Plaintiff<\/small> Arizona<\/p>\n
Defendant<\/small> Environmental Protection Agency<\/p>\n
Filed in the Western District of Washington on Oct. 16, 2025<\/small> <\/p>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
Plaintiff<\/small> Open Technology Fund<\/p>\n
Defendant<\/small> Lake<\/p>\n
Filed in the District of Columbia on March 20, 2025<\/small> <\/p>\n<\/div>\n
injunction<\/small><\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
Plaintiff<\/small> National Public Radio<\/p>\n
Defendant<\/small> Trump<\/p>\n
Filed in the District of Columbia on May 27, 2025<\/small> <\/p>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
Plaintiff<\/small> San Francisco Unified School District<\/p>\n
Defendant<\/small> AmeriCorps<\/p>\n
Filed in the Northern District of California on March 10, 2025<\/small> <\/p>\n<\/div>\n
injunction<\/small><\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
Plaintiff<\/small> Maine<\/p>\n
Defendant<\/small> National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration<\/p>\n
Filed in the District of Maine on June 17, 2025<\/small> <\/p>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
Plaintiff<\/small> Rhode Island Latino Arts<\/p>\n
Defendant<\/small> National Endowment for the Arts <\/p>\n
Filed in the District of Rhode Island on March 6, 2025<\/small> <\/p>\n<\/div>\n
lost<\/small><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
President Trump has tried to withhold billions of dollars in federal funding to coerce states, punish opponents, remake programs and impose his views. His targets have repeatedly sued to stop him, and the courts have repeatedly rebuked him \u2014 only for the president to try again and again.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Take just these seven cases, all of them tied to the administration\u2019s efforts to block funds from \u201csanctuary\u201d communities, those that restrict cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Last February, a coalition of cities and counties sued over executive orders directing agencies to shut off such funds.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Plaintiff<\/small> City and County of San Francisco<\/p>\n
Defendant<\/small> Trump<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Filed in the Northern District of California on Feb. 7, 2025<\/small> <\/p>\n<\/div>\n
injunction<\/small><\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
A judge issued a preliminary injunction<\/strong>, halting those directives while the case proceeded.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The same day, the Department of Transportation told communities they must cooperate with immigration enforcement to get federal transportation dollars.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Twenty states, led by California, soon sued \u2026 <\/p>\n Plaintiff<\/small> California<\/p>\n Defendant<\/small> Department of Transportation<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Filed in the District of Rhode Island on May 13, 2025<\/small> <\/p>\n<\/div>\n lost<\/small><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \u2026 and the administration lost<\/em> in district court.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Department of Homeland Security tried to withhold emergency management funds. Another lawsuit followed \u2026<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Plaintiff<\/small> Illinois<\/p>\n Defendant<\/small> FEMA<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Filed in the District of Rhode Island on May 13, 2025<\/small> <\/p>\n<\/div>\n lost<\/small><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \u2026 and the administration lost<\/em>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Then D.H.S. tried reducing counterterrorism grants to sanctuary states instead \u2026<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Plaintiff<\/small> Illinois<\/p>\n Defendant<\/small> Noem<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Filed in the District of Rhode Island on Sept. 29, 2025<\/small> <\/p>\n<\/div>\n lost<\/small><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \u2026 and again, the administration lost<\/em>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In the past year, funds for housing, transit, health and public safety have all been conditioned on cooperation with immigration.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Plaintiff<\/small> King County<\/p>\n Defendant<\/small> Turner<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Filed in the Western District of Washington on May 2, 2025<\/small> <\/p>\n<\/div>\n injunction<\/small><\/div>\n <\/p>\n Plaintiff<\/small> Fresno<\/p>\n Defendant<\/small> Turner<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Filed in the Northern District of California on Aug. 20, 2025<\/small> <\/p>\n<\/div>\n injunction<\/small><\/div>\n <\/p>\n Plaintiff<\/small> Chicago<\/p>\n Defendant<\/small> Department of Justice<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Filed in the Northern District of Illinois on Nov. 12, 2025<\/small> <\/p>\n<\/div>\n injunction<\/small><\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/p>\n Injunctions<\/strong><\/span> regularly followed.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n These are among 198 lawsuits in the past year identified by The New York Times that challenge how Mr. Trump has leveraged federal funding to carry out his agenda without the consent of Congress. And they reflect one remarkable feature of the campaign: It has proceeded undeterred by losses in court.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n With that persistence, the administration has been hammering away at a new kind of reality in Washington, one where the president wields far more control over spending, and where his opponents aren’t entitled to the services of their federal government.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cAnyone in the country who relies on federal dollars is depending on the president to get that money,\u201d said Matthew Lawrence, a law professor at Emory University. \u201cAnd that\u2019s a new thing.\u201d<\/p>\n [–><\/p>\n The president has threatened money to states that don\u2019t adopt his policies, universities that don\u2019t bend to his will, hospitals that don\u2019t alter their services, school districts that don\u2019t abandon diversity efforts, nonprofits that don\u2019t embrace his gender views, and researchers who study the wrong subjects.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n These moves have tested whether Congress, granted the \u201cpower of the purse,\u201d still holds the ultimate authority over spending. And they have challenged the courts with a flood of cases \u2014 37 separate suits from the state of California; four from the Association of American Universities on virtually the same question; one from King County, Wash., that has grown to include as plaintiffs 75 communities and agencies.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cYou would think there would be some conditioning here: You do an action, you get sued, you lose, maybe you don\u2019t do that action anymore,\u201d said Rob Bonta, who as California\u2019s attorney general has brought many of those suits. \u201cHe\u2019s continued to repeat offend. And repeat lose.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The administration\u2019s approach has amounted to \u201ca game of three-card monte\u201d in the courts, said Samuel Bagenstos, a law professor at the University of Michigan. Each injunction covers the parties suing and the specific programs at issue, but doesn\u2019t necessarily stop the administration from blocking funds to other groups it disfavors. The result, Mr. Bagenstos said: \u201c\u2018Oh, well, you think I can\u2019t do this thing over there<\/em>? Well I\u2019m going to do it over here<\/em>.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Presidents have long sought to steer funding to advance their priorities, designing programs with Congress or awarding competitive grants to communities that emphasize certain ideas. But the Trump administration has gone much further: terminating en masse funds that were already awarded; imposing new conditions on future grants that flout federal rule making; and blocking money to whole programs and agencies created by Congress.<\/p>\n [–><\/p>\n The groups that have sued represent a fraction of everyone affected; many have lacked the means or the will to go to court. But these 198 cases, as of the beginning of March, have pried open a public view into the breadth of the administration\u2019s tactics. And one year in, they have produced a lopsided record of rulings.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n When plaintiffs have sought immediate relief, district court judges have temporarily blocked the administration\u2019s actions 79 percent of the time, signaling plaintiffs\u2019 likely success on the merits. In the 26 instances where district judges have issued partial or final rulings, the administration lost 23.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Planned Parenthood of Greater New York v. Department of Health and Human Services<\/small><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Just because a pronouncement comes from the president does not make it true<\/strong>, even if expressed in the form of an executive order, and even then, does not supersede the law.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n lost<\/small><\/div>\n <\/p>\n American Federation of Teachers v. U.S. Department of Education<\/small><\/p>\n <\/p>\n By leapfrogging important procedural requirements, the government has unwittingly run headfirst into serious constitutional problems<\/strong>.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n lost<\/small><\/div>\n <\/p>\n Michigan v. Noem<\/small><\/p>\n <\/p>\n None of this appears consistent<\/strong> with Congressional intent or FEMA\u2019s mission.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n lost<\/small><\/div>\n <\/p>\n The administration declined to comment on the record. But a White House official authorized to describe the strategy said the Trump administration is restoring power to the presidency that previous presidents have shied away from, while tapping that power to prevent fraud and steward taxpayer dollars. The groups bringing all these lawsuits, that person said, are the ones using the courts in a hostile campaign to hamstring the president.<\/p>\n [–><\/p>\n The administration has notably walked away from some defeats without appealing them. But it is counting on a better record before appeals court judges, as has been the case more broadly. Among cases it has appealed, appellate courts have reversed or paused orders against the administration in about 40 percent of their rulings, often with judges appointed by Mr. Trump in his favor.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n But even when it is losing in court, plaintiffs\u2019 attorneys and legal scholars said, the administration may still find it is winning on its own terms.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [–><\/p>\n Alongside that first sanctuary cities directive, early executive orders outlining the president\u2019s core agenda aimed to end all \u201cdiversity, equity and inclusion\u201d in the government, to eradicate \u201cgender ideology,\u201d to reverse the \u201cgreen new deal,\u201d and to enforce \u201celection integrity.\u201d All of them proposed leveraging federal funds to do it.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n These cases show the administration pulling that lever in numerous ways.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n It has tried to set conditions with no clear relationship to program goals (like immigration requirements for highway funds). It has threatened funding to force states to share information (voter rolls, food aid lists). It has told grantees they must pledge to comply with orders the president hasn\u2019t issued yet. And it has invoked criminal and financial penalties if they break those pledges.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n It has terminated even small sums, targeting with laser precision opponents of the president (who then sued):<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The American Bar Association lost $3.2 million in domestic violence training grants after the administration attacked the group.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Plaintiff<\/small> American Bar Association<\/p>\n Defendant<\/small> Department of Justice<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Filed in the District of Columbia on April 23, 2025<\/small> <\/p>\n<\/div>\n injunction<\/small><\/div>\n <\/p>\n The American Academy of Pediatrics lost nearly $12 million in grants in apparent retaliation for its advocacy of vaccines and gender-affirming care.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Plaintiff<\/small> American Academy of Pediatrics<\/p>\n Defendant<\/small> Department of Health and Human Services<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Filed in the District of Columbia on Dec. 24, 2025<\/small> <\/p>\n<\/div>\n injunction<\/small><\/div>\n <\/p>\n Maine lost access to support for school meals as Gov. Janet Mills was fighting with the president over transgender athletes.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Plaintiff<\/small> Maine<\/p>\n Defendant<\/small> Department of Agriculture <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Filed in the District of Maine on April 7, 2025<\/small> <\/p>\n<\/div>\n injunction<\/small><\/div>\n <\/p>\n The government backed down with the American Bar Association and Maine after judges issued initial rulings, only to turn its focus elsewhere.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cYou can see that the government\u2019s posture is essentially: Do the thing that\u2019s going to make the White House happy, or get the press release about sticking it to trans people,\u201d said Kevin Love Hubbard, a former D.O.J. attorney who represented the government before leaving in August. Agencies are doing that, he said, \u201cwithout thinking about then having to go into court.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Today, he is suing the government in several funding cases with the Lawyers\u2019 Committee for Rhode Island.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Most of these nearly 200 cases are about disfavored categories of recipients like sanctuary jurisdictions, Harvard researchers or organizations serving transgender people.<\/p>\n [–><\/p>\n \u201cWe are the undeserving recipients, at least in the mind of our current administration,\u201d said Leesa Manion, the prosecuting attorney in King County, Wash., which encompasses Seattle. \u201cThe goal all along was to ensure that we \u2014 the undesirables \u2014 do not get our fair share. Whether it works or doesn\u2019t work, if that\u2019s your overarching goal, you just keep evolving your technique.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The administration is now increasingly targeting blue states as such a category, too.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n That began during the government shutdown last October, when the White House budget director Russell Vought announced the administration would cancel nearly $8 billion in energy projects in 16 states \u2014 all where voters had supported Kamala Harris in 2024.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n A small group of grantees, including the city of St. Paul, Minn., sued in response.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Plaintiff<\/small> St. Paul, Minnesota<\/p>\n Defendant<\/small> Wright<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Filed in the District of Columbia on Nov. 10, 2025<\/small> <\/p>\n<\/div>\n lost<\/small><\/div>\n <\/p>\n In January, the administration lost<\/em> in district court, where a judge said it had violated the Constitution.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n But officials were already preparing other cuts to blue states. H.H.S. froze $10 billion in child care and family assistance funds to five states. The states sued \u2026<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Plaintiff<\/small> New York<\/p>\n Defendant<\/small> Administration for Children and Families<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Filed in the Southern District of New York on Jan. 8, 2026<\/small> <\/p>\n<\/div>\n injunction<\/small><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \u2026 and a judge issued an injunction.<\/strong> <\/p>\n The D.O.T. suspended funding to the $16 billion Gateway Tunnel project connecting New Jersey and New York. Both states sued \u2026<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Plaintiff<\/small> New Jersey<\/p>\n Defendant<\/small> Department of Transportation<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Filed in the Southern District of New York on Feb. 3, 2026<\/small> <\/p>\n<\/div>\n injunction<\/small><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \u2026 and secured <\/strong>another injunction<\/strong>.<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Even after those setbacks, in early February the administration told Congress it would cut more than $600 million in public health grants to four blue states. They sued \u2026<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Plaintiff<\/small> Illinois<\/p>\n Defendant<\/small> Vought<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Filed in the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 11, 2026<\/small> <\/p>\n<\/div>\n injunction<\/small><\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/p>\n \u2026 and the next day, a judge issued another<\/strong> injunction<\/strong><\/span> in the form of a temporary restraining order.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Still, last week, the administration said it would withhold about $250 million in Medicaid funds from Minnesota (prompting another lawsuit).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n These moves, citing a mix of fraud and immigration policies, follow the president\u2019s vow to block all funding to sanctuary jurisdictions \u2014 a group, under the D.O.J.\u2019s definition, that could encompass one-third of the U.S. population.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cThey can sue us and maybe they\u2019ll win,\u201d the president said in January. \u201cBut we\u2019re not giving money to sanctuary cities anymore.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [–><\/p>\n At stake in many cases are weighty constitutional principles: the separation of powers; the right to due process when the government says grantees have done something wrong; the First Amendment protections for organizations to advocate their views without government retaliation.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In the St. Paul suit, a district judge, Amit P. Mehta, ruled in January for the first time in one of these cases that the administration had violated the Fifth Amendment\u2019s equal protection clause by singling out states for their partisan lean. During the litigation, the government didn\u2019t deny doing that. Rather, it argued it was allowed to.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n St. Paul, Minnesota v. Wright<\/small><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Defendants freely admit that they made grant-termination decisions primarily \u2014 if not exclusively \u2014 based on whether the awardee resided in a state whose citizens voted for President Trump in 2024. There is no rational relationship<\/strong> between that classification and defendants\u2019 stated governmental interest.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n lost<\/small><\/div>\n <\/p>\n But that ruling covered only seven canceled grants worth about $27.5 million out of the nearly $8 billion total terminated. Now a coalition of 13 states is suing with the same constitutional argument in a new case about the same cuts.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The constant that is running through most of these cases, however, is the more mundane-sounding Administrative Procedure Act. That 1946 law says that the federal government must be reasoned and document its thinking according to transparent rules \u2014 in short, that it shouldn\u2019t be slapdash and secretive.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n These cases are full of examples of it doing just that. When the Department of Homeland Security tried last year to reduce counterterrorism grants to sanctuary states, the agency appeared to arrive at the lower award sums by simply lopping digits off the original values. <\/p>\n Illinois v. Noem<\/small><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Neither a law degree nor a degree in mathematics is required to deduce that no plausible, rational formula<\/strong> could produce this result.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n lost<\/small><\/div>\n <\/p>\n Officials have sent out directives with copy-and-pasted typos, termination letters without agency letterhead and bare explanations with boilerplate rationale.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cYou had literally grants for millions of dollars being canceled in a single vague paragraph: \u2018This no longer comports with administration priorities, thank you very much,\u2019\u201d said Claudia Polsky, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, who has led a class-action lawsuit among University of California researchers that has restored, for now, at least a thousand grants worth about a billion dollars.<\/p>\n [–><\/p>\n The administration has given grantees new mandates \u2014 and prohibitions \u2014 so vague that they haven\u2019t known how to comply.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201c\u2018Promote gender ideology\u2019 \u2014 what does that mean?\u201d said Maria Corona, the head of the Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence, which has challenged new conditions on grants. \u201cWhen you\u2019re talking about \u2018violence against women,\u2019 in the language itself we\u2019re already talking about a gender issue.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Last February, the National Institutes of Health issued a seismic policy change on a Friday night, to take effect the following Monday, slashing payments to universities for research overhead, drawing several lawsuits.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Plaintiff<\/small> Massachusetts<\/p>\n Defendant<\/small> National Institutes of Health<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Filed in the District of Massachusetts on Feb. 10, 2025<\/small> <\/p>\n<\/div>\n lost<\/small><\/div>\n <\/p>\n Plaintiff<\/small> Association of American Medical Colleges<\/p>\n Defendant<\/small> National Institutes of Health<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Filed in the District of Massachusetts on Feb. 10, 2025<\/small> <\/p>\n<\/div>\n lost<\/small><\/div>\n <\/p>\n Plaintiff<\/small> Association of American Universities<\/p>\n Defendant<\/small> Department of Health and Human Services<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Filed in the District of Massachusetts on Feb. 10, 2025<\/small> <\/p>\n<\/div>\n lost<\/small><\/div>\n <\/p>\n In April, the administration lost<\/em> these cases, consolidated under one judge (an appeals court upheld the decision this year).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n But after the district court ruling, the Department of Energy, followed by the National Science Foundation and then the Department of Defense, each rolled out an identical policy.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Plaintiff<\/small> Association of American Universities<\/p>\n Defendant<\/small> Department of Energy <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Filed in the District of Massachusetts on April 14, 2025<\/small> <\/p>\n<\/div>\n lost<\/small><\/div>\n <\/p>\n Plaintiff<\/small> Association of American Universities<\/p>\n Defendant<\/small> National Science Foundation<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Filed in the District of Massachusetts on May 5, 2025<\/small> <\/p>\n<\/div>\n lost<\/small><\/div>\n <\/p>\n Plaintiff<\/small> Association of American Universities<\/p>\n Defendant<\/small> Department of Defense<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Filed in the District of Massachusetts on June 16, 2025<\/small> <\/p>\n<\/div>\n lost<\/small><\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/p>\n As these cases accumulated, so did the judges\u2019 irritation.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Association of American Universities v. Department of Defense<\/small><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Court does not write upon a blank slate but instead follows three other courts in this district who have come to similar conclusions with respect to different federal agencies\u2019 attempts to enact virtually identical policies. Notably, defendants ignored these<\/strong> obviously relevant \u2014 and at least reasonable \u2014 analyses before adopting this policy.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n lost<\/small><\/div>\n <\/p>\n Success for the administration has seldom involved winning on the merits. Rather, the administration has argued in most of these cases that district judges have no business hearing them at all. Cases seeking money, it says, belong instead in the Court of Federal Claims, a specialized court dedicated to financial contract disputes with the government.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett breathed life into that argument, concurring in a preliminary ruling last summer that surprised some legal experts. Her opinion \u2014 suggesting policies should be litigated in district court, while payouts resulting from them belong in the Court of Federal Claims \u2014 has further complicated these cases. So has the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling last year ending nationwide injunctions.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [–><\/p>\n By the time grantees have gone to court, they have already lost much. Researchers have halted studies. Nonprofits have laid off staff. The core expectation that the government is a reliable partner has already been undercut.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cThe result is a corrosive uncertainty that undermines the basic functioning of government,\u201d said Jacob Leibenluft, a former official in the Biden White House budget office.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n That uncertainty sets in the moment money isn\u2019t on time, or when grantees start to think it won\u2019t be in the future. Other changes take root, too: Grantees rethink what\u2019s in their mission statements; professors shift what they teach.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n American Association of University Professors v. Trump<\/small><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Numerous U.C. faculty and staff have submitted declarations describing how defendants\u2019 actions have already chilled speech<\/strong> throughout the U.C. system.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n injunction<\/small><\/div>\n <\/p>\n The administration is advancing these changes even when it\u2019s losing particular funding cases in court. And it has successfully blocked money to groups who haven\u2019t sued, further entrenching the president’s expanded power over spending.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Whether this dynamic sticks depends as much on Congress as on the courts. If legislators were more actively guarding programs they had funded themselves, many of these lawsuits likely wouldn\u2019t exist.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n New York v. Trump<\/small><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The interaction of the three co-equal branches of government is an intricate, delicate and sophisticated balance \u2014 but it is crucial to our form of constitutional governance. Here, the Executive put itself above Congress.<\/strong> <\/div>\n<\/div>\n injunction<\/small><\/div>\n <\/p>\n In rare cases, Republicans in Congress have pushed back against the administration and been able to reverse billions in cuts far more quickly than courts could, including from after-school programs and mental health and addiction treatment.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n For most programs targeted by the administration, however, Republicans have publicly said little, and that\u2019s unlikely to change as the president now targets blue states more explicitly. Republican and Democratic appropriators have together quietly tucked some new guardrails into spending bills this year. But it is Democrats, primarily, who have spoken up for the larger principle that lawmakers set the terms of federal spending \u2014 not the president.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cWe have to guard that with our lives,\u201d said Rosa DeLauro, the top Democratic appropriator in the House. The alternative, she said, is that funding becomes a tool to silence dissent. \u201c\u2018Don\u2019t speak out \u2014 or I\u2019ll cancel your grant.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n [–><\/p>\n Absent bipartisan clamor in Congress, cases like King County v. Turner grind on. The case was brought last May by eight local governments challenging new conditions on housing and transportation grants. Then they added H.H.S. as a defendant. And 23 more local governments and transit and housing agencies joined as plaintiffs. Then another 29 came on board. Then 15 more. Each one has had to explain the harms it has faced. The judge has had to review each claim, alongside the details of dozens of grant programs, while crafting what are now four successive injunctions. All that is just one lawsuit.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cShould we have to do that 200 times, 300 times?\u201d said Erin Overbey, the general counsel with the King County Prosecuting Attorney\u2019s Office. \u201cWhat\u2019s the number where we reach critical mass?\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p><\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Plaintiff Council for Opportunity in Education Defendant U.S. Department of Education Filed in the District of Columbia on Oct. 14, 2025 Injunction Plaintiff Dallas County, Tex. Defendant Kennedy Filed in the District of Columbia on Dec. 5, 2025 Plaintiff Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence Defendant Kennedy Jr. Filed in the District of Rhode Island …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":62848,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/static01.nyt.com\/images\/2025\/03\/04\/upshot\/funding-litigation-promo\/funding-litigation-promo-facebookJumbo.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-62847","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","","category-mundo"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/noticiasveraces.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62847","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/noticiasveraces.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/noticiasveraces.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/noticiasveraces.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/noticiasveraces.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=62847"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/noticiasveraces.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62847\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/noticiasveraces.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/62848"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/noticiasveraces.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=62847"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/noticiasveraces.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=62847"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/noticiasveraces.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=62847"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\u2018Undeserving recipients\u2019<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
Arbitrary and capricious
Winning while losing<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n