In a recent legal decision in New York, a federal judge has decided that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is not compelled to immediately return over $80 million it recently withdrew from New York City. This financial tug-of-war centers around the funds that FEMA had previously earmarked for the city to support shelters housing migrants. The city lost these funds last month, leading to a contentious lawsuit.
Presiding over the case in Manhattan, Judge Jennifer H. Rearden ruled against a temporary restraining order that New York City sought. The judge asserted that the city failed to demonstrate that it would experience irreparable harm without the immediate return of the funds. Consequently, the legal proceedings against former President Donald Trump and various federal officials will continue in pursuit of a preliminary injunction by the city.
On February 21, New York initiated a lawsuit against the Trump administration following FEMA’s decision to retract grant funds slated for reimbursing the city for hotel accommodations procured as migrant shelters. FEMA justified its actions by citing security issues related to a violent gang allegedly seizing control of a city shelter.
According to the city, the grant funds had been sanctioned and allocated during the closing months of President Joe Biden’s time in office. However, the distribution did not occur until the Trump administration was in place. The city’s legal team contended that concerns raised by the Trump administration regarding gang activity were merely a “hastily-constructed facade.” They argued that the actual objective was to obstruct the execution of a congressionally-endowed shelter funding initiative.
Labeling the retrieval of funds as “lawless,” the city’s lawsuit criticized the defendants for acting without proper notice or due process, subsequent to FEMA’s previous approval and monetary allocation. During the oral arguments, Emily Hall, representing the federal government, assured the court that the money remains available pending the full adjudication of the lawsuit, unless Congress decides otherwise.
In response, Joshua Rubin, an attorney for New York City, communicated to Judge Rearden the profound surprise they experienced upon discovering the revocation of funds. He emphasized that these funds were crucial for housing individuals whom FEMA had deemed eligible to remain in the US.
Despite acknowledging the extraordinary nature of their appeal to have the funds swiftly restored, Rubin argued that their request was prompted by an equally extraordinary situation, suggesting that the action of fund withdrawal was unconstitutional, given its congressional appropriation. Nonetheless, Judge Rearden concluded that New York City’s assertions did not demonstrate “irreparable harm,” thereby not justifying any extraordinary judicial intervention at this stage.
