CNN
—
Three different federal judges delivered legal setbacks and slap downs to President Donald Trump in the span of an hour and a half on Tuesday in a series of cases challenging controversial moves taken during the early days of his second term.
The rulings from judges in Washington, DC, and Washington state are the latest to pump the brakes on Trump’s agenda, underscoring the critical role courts have taken on for foes of Trump looking to frustrate his actions.
In DC, Judge Loren AliKhan issued a preliminary injunction that indefinitely blocks the administration from freezing federal grants and loans. The ruling expands an earlier block the appointee of former President Joe Biden issued last month shortly after the White House ordered the funding freeze.
“In the simplest terms, the freeze was ill-conceived from the beginning. Defendants either wanted to pause up to $3 trillion in federal spending practically overnight, or they expected each federal agency to review every single one of its grants, loans, and funds for compliance in less than twenty-four hours. The breadth of that command is almost unfathomable,” AliKhan wrote in her ruling.
She went on to say that the spending freeze was “irrational, imprudent, and precipitated a nationwide crisis.”
The issue of withholding federal funds has become a major flashpoint during the opening weeks of Trump’s second term, with other pending cases challenging the White House’s decision to suspend all foreign assistance.
Shortly before AliKhan issued her ruling, a separate jurist in the DC federal courthouse – Judge Amir Ali – ordered the Trump administration to pay foreign aid-related money owed to government contractors and nonprofit groups by Wednesday night, amid the legal fight over the freezing of USAID and State Department funds.
That order amounted to a legal reprimand after the plaintiffs in the cases repeatedly accused the administration of not complying with Ali’s earlier temporary restraining order that revived the funding contracts and grants that existed at the end of the Biden administration.
Ali – also a Biden appointee – rebuffed an earlier call by the challengers for the administration to be held in contempt for its alleged non-compliance. But he issued a new order requiring, in more forceful terms, that the government pay money owed to contractors and non-profits for work that had already been completed by the February 13 order.
Meanwhile, across the country in Washington state, a federal judge in Seattle issued a preliminary injunction on Tuesday that halts Trump’s executive order suspending refugee admissions and funding.
Judge Jamal Whitehead, who was also appointed by Biden, said that Trump’s “actions amount to an effective nullification of congressional will in establishing the nation’s refugee admissions program.”
“While the president has substantial discretion to suspend refugee admissions, that authority is not limitless,” the judge said.
Trump’s executive order, signed on his first day back in office, also directed a review of the refugee program and stated that resettlement should only resume if deemed to be in the “national interest” – a move critics argue is a de facto refugee ban.
The administration is facing at least 80 cases challenging a range of actions taken during Trump’s first few weeks back in office.
The plaintiffs behind those challenges have seen some success as they’ve pressed judges to issue emergency relief during the early stages of the litigation. But the White House, too, has scored some court victories in cases brought against the administration’s efforts to shrink the federal workforce and shutter the US’ foreign aid agency.
Many of the cases are finally getting a more thorough review by judges who are mulling whether to issue preliminary injunctions to block the contested government action. Such a decision is often the final trial court-level ruling issued in cases before they’re appealed by the losing side.
As AliKhan explained her reasoning for issuing the preliminary injunction in the funding freeze case, she said the nonprofits that brought the case were likely to succeed on their claims that the freeze was unlawful.
“The scope of power (the Office of Management and Budget) seeks to claim is ‘breathtaking,’ and its ramifications are massive,” she wrote. “Because there is no clear statutory hook for this broad assertion of power, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of this claim.”
And AliKhan noted that her earlier order temporarily halting the funding freeze was just that – temporary.
“The relief Plaintiffs now seek is a more durable version of the relief they sought then, when their members were on the brink of extinction,” she wrote. “In sum, Plaintiffs have marshalled significant evidence indicating that the funding freeze would be economically catastrophic – and in some circumstances, fatal – to their members.”
CNN’s Tierney Sneed and Angelica Franganillo Diaz contributed to this report.
This story has been updated with additional details.
