Trump-imposed grant conditions for cities and counties blocked

SEATTLE (CN) — The coalition of cities and counties accusing the federal government of coercing them to adopt President Donald Trump’s policy agenda by imposing conditions for grant funding secured an early win Wednesday after a federal judge granted a temporary restraining order barring the government from enforcing the conditions for two weeks.

“Defendants have put plaintiffs in the position of having to choose between accepting conditions that plaintiffs believe are unconstitutional and inappropriate and risking the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in grant funding,” U.S. District Judge Barbara Rothstein said.

Those conditions are likely to exceed the government’s authority, violate the Constitution and weren’t approved by Congress, the Jimmy Carter appointee determined.

The plaintiffs — which include King, Pierce and Snohomish counties in Washington state, as well as San Francisco and Santa Clara counties in California and the cities of Boston, Columbus and New York — asked for a temporary restraining order while the case proceeds.

“The way the Trump administration has acted makes it entirely clear why we’re here today and why we need to act quickly,” said Paul Lawrence, attorney with the Seattle-based Pacifica Law Group representing the plaintiffs.

The counties and cities accuse the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation and the Federal Transit Administration of “usurp[ing] Congress’ power of the purse” by adding conditions that don’t pertain to the purposes of the grant programs and require adherence to Trump’s anti-diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

Some of the conditions include agreeing not to use funds in a way that promotes illegal immigration, “gender ideology,” as defined in Trump’s much-challengedexecutive order, or elective abortion.

The plaintiffs argued the conditions have no connection to the purpose of the grants, such as the Continuum of Care grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which is intended to address urgent housing needs for people experiencing homelessness.

“There’s no connection between connecting housing for homeless people with the idea that you can’t have DEI,” Lawrence said.

Rothstein agreed, finding that the conditions neither related to the content of the grants nor made them more efficient.

“As more information has come out, it’s been clear these are more onerous and unlawful conditions,” Lawrence said.

The federal government argued a temporary restraining order is unnecessary.

“We don’t see the emergency,” Brian Kipnis with the U.S. Attorney’s Office said, a notion he repeatedly raised throughout his argument.

Kipnis argued that grant recipients aren’t held to a specific timeline for meeting the new conditions, so long as it’s “timely.”

“The world does not end in the next 14 days for plaintiffs,” Kipnis said.

However, Rothstein noted the government’s presentation of the timeline faced by grant recipients was “confusing at best” and said he was setting aside whether the cities and counties faced imminent harm.

The federal government’s position is that the cities and counties are essentially raising a contract claim, which can only be heard in the Court of Federal Claims. But the local governments argue their challenge is a constitutional one, attacking the nature of the conditions.

Rothstein, too, disagreed with the federal government’s jurisdiction argument, noting that the type of relief sought by the cities and counties wouldn’t be appropriate for the Court of Claims.

Additionally, the cities and counties claim the grant money has already been incorporated into their budgets, committed to third parties, or, in some cases, already spent.

“There is an immediate need,” Lawrence said. Some of the plaintiffs have deadlines looming this week and Lawrence expressed doubt that the Trump administration could be trusted not to revoke promised funding if those deadlines were missed due to pending litigation.

Rothstein found that the local governments proved they were likely to succeed on the merits and suffer irreparable harm without relief.