A federal appeals court in Boston has declined to reinstate a broad suspension on federal funding as requested by the Trump administration, following a district court ruling that indicated the administration had not fully complied with previous orders. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the emergency appeal, marking yet another legal setback that has become a source of frustration for officials within the administration, as it delays President Donald Trump’s extensive policy initiatives.
The appeals court has also anticipated that the lower court judge will need to provide further clarification on his initial ruling. The Trump administration swiftly moved to withhold funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency intended for New York City’s migrant housing program, citing significant concerns regarding the expenditures related to a program authorized by Congress.
The Justice Department had made an earlier request for the court to permit the implementation of a comprehensive pause on federal grants and loans, labeling the lower court’s directive to continue disbursing funds as “intolerable judicial overreach.” U.S. District Court Judge John McConnell in Rhode Island is overseeing a case brought forth by nearly twenty Democratic states in response to the administration’s controversial memo that aimed to freeze federal grants and loans, amounting to trillions of dollars, creating turmoil nationwide.
Although the administration has since revoked that memo, Judge McConnell noted that federal grants and loans have not been completely restored. His ruling represented the first instance where a judge found the administration had failed to comply with a court order.
Funding for essential services, including early childhood education, pollution control, and HIV prevention initiatives, has remained stalled despite the judge’s January 31 directive to lift the funding freeze, as reported by the states involved in the lawsuit.
McConnell, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, instructed the Trump administration to “immediately take every step necessary” to resume the flow of all federal grants and loans. He also pointed out that his order blocked the administration from implementing proposed cuts to billions in funding from the National Institutes of Health, which had been announced the previous week.
The Justice Department argued that Judge McConnell’s ruling hampers the executive branch’s ability to carry out its lawful responsibilities, including making discretionary spending decisions and addressing fraud. In their appeal, government lawyers contended that a district court judge should not be able to curtail the President’s constitutional powers to ensure that laws are enforced.
In contrast, the states contended that the president lacks authority to obstruct funding appropriated by Congress, asserting that the continued withholding of grants and loans is having severe repercussions for residents in their jurisdictions. They urged the appeals court to allow the case to continue under Judge McConnell’s supervision.
Additionally, judges have temporarily blocked multiple initiatives from the Trump administration, including attempts to eliminate birthright citizenship for individuals born in the U.S., access to financial records of private citizen Elon Musk from a government department, and a large-scale resignation strategy for federal employees.
The Republican administration previously justified the sweeping funding pause by asserting that it would realign federal expenditures with the president’s agenda, focusing on boosting fossil fuel production, rescinding protections for transgender individuals, and eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. Another federal judge in Washington has also imposed a temporary restraining order on the funding freeze and expressed concerns regarding the impact on nonprofit organizations that are in need of their funding.
