Washington – A federal judge at Rhode Island temporarily blocked the Trump administration of Federal assistance freezing After a group of 22 states and the Columbia district, they challenged a memorandum of the White House Budget office that ordered a federal fund pause.
The main judge of the US District, John McConnell by Rhode Island, Friday granted the application For a temporary restriction order requested by the states led by the Democrats, who had argued that the actions of the Office of Management and Budget violated the Federal Law and the Constitution.
The order of McConnell was expected, since he had indicated after an audience on Wednesday that he was inclined to issue the temporary pause of the Trump administration directive. The judge said in his decision that the actions of the Office of Management and the Budget are probably unconstitutional and violate the federal law.
“There are some aspects of the pause that could be legal and constitutionally appropriate for the Executive to take? And ‘pause’ ambiguous of critical financing that are not,” McConnell found.
The judge wrote that the budget office did not cite any legal authority that allowed him to unilaterally suspend the flow of federal funds to the states and other entities and said that “no federal law would authorize the unilateral action of the Executive here.”
“The states have established facts that show that the abrupt” pause “of the Executive in billion dollars of federal funds will cause a domino effect that would directly affect the states and the ability to provide and administer vital services and relief to its citizens.” McConnell wrote.
The New York Attorney General, Letitia James, who is part of the lawsuit, cheered the order of the Court and said that the president cannot unilaterally stop the expenses commitments of the Congress.
“The reckless plan of this administration to block federal funds has already caused chaos, confusion and conflict throughout our country,” he said in a statement. “In the short time since this policy was announced, families have been separated from child care services, the essential funds of Medicaid and the critical efforts of application of the law were endangered.”
The states led by the Democrats filed their lawsuit earlier this week in response to a memorandum of the Office of Administration and Budget that ordered the agencies to stop temporarily “to the extent allowed by the law” Financial or Financial Assistance Programs or Federal Financial Assistance that were involved by MR. The executive orders listed include those involving immigrationenergy, diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, programs, and gender ideology.
The memorandum was issued by Matthew Vaeth, interim director of the Office of Administration and Budget, who said that freezing would be valid at 5 pm on Tuesday. Its complete scope was not clear and caused confusion and chaos throughout the country, since states and non -profit organizations rushed to determine if they would be affected. Legislators also received calls from constituents and organizations in their states that seek answers about whether they would be separated from federal dollars.
The memorandum also caused immediate legal actions of the states led by the Democrats and a group of non -profit organizations, which presented a separate challenge in Washington, DC, a federal judge quickly summoned a hearing on a request of the non -purpose organizations of I profit to temporarily block the freezing freezing application. , and agreed on Tuesday to issue a brief pause to completely consider the matter.
A day later, the Office of Management and Budget issued a new two -line memorandum that says the previous directive It had been terminated.
But the questions continued to arise after the White House Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, said that only the budget office memorandum had been returned and that the detention of the broader federal assistance would remain in force.
“This is not a termination of the freezing of federal funds. It is simply a termination of the OMB note,” she, “she,” she, “she,” she, ” wrote on social networks Wednesday. “Why? To end any confusion created by the court order of the Court. The president’s EO on federal funds remains in full validity and effect, and will be strictly implemented.”
After Leavitt, the Department of Justice argued that the matter before McConnell was debatable. But the judge said in order that “the evidence shows that the alleged termination of the OMB directive was alone in the name and could have been issued simply to defeat the jurisdiction of the Court.”
“The substantive effect of the directive continues,” he wrote. “White House messages and agencies demonstrate this point.”
By
