ABA rips feds over domestic violence grant termination

WASHINGTON (CN) — The American Bar Association on Monday urged a federal judge to declare the Trump administration’s sudden termination of grants meant to fund domestic violence legal trainings as unlawful.

The ABA filed its lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on April 23 and argued that the Justice Department targeted the legal association in retaliation for litigating against the government and taking progressive positions in amicus briefs.

On April 9, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a memorandum decrying the ABA’s “support of activist causes” and prohibited Justice Department employees from participating in ABA-sponsored events, renewing personally paid-for ABA memberships and any engagement that would support ABA-sponsored publications.

The ABA had five active grants with the Justice Department’s Office on Violence Against Women, totaling $3.2 million.

“The memo takes the position that DOJ can withhold funds from the ABA as a response to DOJ’s disagreements with the ABA, because DOJ must ‘be careful stewards of the public fisc,’” the ABA wrote in the suit. “Therefore, to sanction the ABA for engaging in constitutionally protected activities that the administration dislikes, the Blanche memo imposed new and extraordinary limits on DOJ employees’ engagement with the ABA.”

Christine Coogle, of Democracy Forward and representing the ABA, argued Monday that the canceled funding would cause the dissolution of the ABA’s Commission on Domestic and Sexual Violence, which has received grants since 1995 under the Violence Against Women Act.

The commission funds training and support programs for lawyers and judges to improve legal access for survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault.

Coogle argued that the Justice Department’s conduct was clear viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment and seemingly took issue with views the association expressed in amicus briefs during former President Joe Biden’s administration.

Blanche’s intent to silence the association and chill legal resistance was clear, Coogle argued.

“The Justice Department has singled out the ABA,” Coogle said. “Now, ABA must think very hard about filing amicus briefs and filing lawsuits.”

Coogle urged U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper to reject the Justice Department’s argument that the case was merely a contract dispute and could only be heard in the Court of Federal Claims, as several judges in Washington have ruled in similar cases.

In one such dispute, U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden denied the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ request to release suddenly halted funds for refugee resettlement programs, after determining he did not have jurisdiction.

Coogle argued that the key difference in the ABA’s case was the fact that the commission was reliant on the funding, and any such termination is prohibited by law.

Cooper, a Barack Obama appointee, seemed receptive to Coogle’s argument that the potential harm caused by the terminations could not be addressed by monetary damages, as the ABA would be forced to lay off the entirety of its commission staff and would lose the trust of its partner organizations.

Cooper compared the ABA’s suit to veterans’ challenges seeking to correct their military records, noting that while they might receive monetary relief in higher retirement benefits, the primary relief sought is for their reputation.

Justice Department attorney Douglas Dreier maintained that the ABA’s case could only be addressed in the Court of Federal Claims. He argued that the funds were allocated to ABA as a whole, and with the organization’s size, it should be able to still maintain the commission without the federal grants.

Dreier also argued that the Trump administration had full discretion to decide the grant programs were not consistent with its policy priorities and had the right to terminate the grants at will. He asserted that the Justice Department conducted a review of the grants before terminating them.

Cooper asked whether the Justice Department canceled any other grants with contractors providing legal training for domestic violence and sexual assault cases. Breier said there were still active grants.

The Trump administration has used federal grant funding as a tool to quickly reshape the government’s priorities and halt programs enacted under Biden, including grant programs for clean energy infrastructure projects.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan blocked the Environmental Protection Agency from clawing back nearly $14 billion in clean energy grants in March, ruling that the administration’s “waste, fraud and abuse” justification was insufficient to support the sudden termination.

The Trump administration appealed Chutkan’s decision to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals with oral arguments scheduled for May 19.

Follow @Ryan_Knappy