The judge said agencies following the president’s direction cannot ‘hamstring in perpetuity two statutes passed by Congress during the previous administration.’
A federal judge on April 15 blocked the Trump administration from freezing the disbursement of funds for climate and infrastructure grants, finding that the pause in disbursing funds was illegal.
Nonprofits suing the administration over the freeze presented evidence that the indefinite freeze of already-awarded money was arbitrary and capricious, in contravention of federal law, U.S. District Judge Mary S. McElroy said in a 63-page ruling that entered a preliminary injunction against the Department of Agriculture and five other agencies.
Officials with the agencies earlier this year froze funds awarded under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, two laws passed by Congress and signed by former President Joe Biden. They cited President Donald Trump’s Jan. 20 order that directed all agencies to pause the disbursement of money under the laws in order to review whether the funds were consistent with the law and with Trump’s agenda.
The Woonasquatucket River Watershed Council and other groups that received awards sued, alleging in part that the freeze violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which prohibits arbitrary and capricious actions and lets courts set such actions aside.
The freeze was “blatantly arbitrary and capricious, including because it fails to account for the significant reliance interests of grantees and other recipients who reasonably expect—and need—to be able to draw on open awards of funding in order to provide services,” the groups said in a motion for an injunction.
Government lawyers told the court that Congress gave agencies the discretion to select among eligible recipients of the funding allocated by the laws, “and therefore Defendants are likewise entitled to temporarily pause funding for current recipients to determine whether they wish to redirect that funding elsewhere.”
“Plaintiffs’ contrary theory—that this Court should compel agencies to continue funding existing grants, even when those grants conflict with the President’s priorities—would raise significant separation of powers concerns,” they said.
McElroy said that courts cannot decide whether a president’s policies are sound but must weigh in on the lawfulness of the policies when constitutionally required.
“Agencies do not have unlimited authority to further a President’s agenda, nor do they have unfettered power to hamstring in perpetuity two statutes passed by Congress during the previous administration,” she wrote.
The judge also said that agencies are likely able to pause funding on a case-by-case basis, but those “narrower powers cannot justify the broad exercise of authority” that the defendants have asserted.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment.