President Donald Trump has been “vindicated” by the Supreme Court’s decision to stay a preliminary injunction against his freeze on federal grants, his lawyers have told a court.
Why It Matters
Tens of billions of dollars in federal grants are at stake and the case could have a profound effect on many areas of U.S. life across many government departments.
If the courts follow Trump’s April 4 Supreme Court victory, it could be a major assistance to the Trump administration’s attempts to slash the federal budget.
Newsweek sought email comment on Monday from the offices of U.S. Attorney General, Pam Bondi, and New York Attorney General, Letitia James.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
What To Know
After his inauguration, Trump ordered a freeze on all federal grants, until an assessment can be made of their effectiveness.
Twenty-one states and Washington D.C are fighting Trump’s order and Rhode Island Judge John McConnell has granted them a preliminary injunction.
In a separate case, the Supreme Court granted Trump a stay on a preliminary injunction that had been preventing him from cutting $65 million in diversity grants at the Department of Education.
His lawyers then returned to the Rhode Island judge on April 5, arguing that the Supreme Court decision “plainly vindicates the government’s position in this case” and asking the court to lift the preliminary injunction in the federal funding freeze case.
The plaintiff states filed a response on April 7, arguing that “Defendants’ motion fails for multiple reasons and should be denied.”
They noted that Trump won the Supreme Court education grant case by a very narrow 5-4 margin and that Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissenting judgement that the Supreme Court’s stay order was being issued “with barebones briefing, no argument, and scarce time for reflection.” Chief Justice, John Roberts, joined Kagan and the other two liberal judges in dissenting from the majority.
In their April 7 court filing in Rhode Island, the plaintiff states argue that the Supreme Court’s education department grant case “looks nothing like the current case.”
“Although Plaintiff States here challenge defendants’ refusal to disburse federal funds, they do not challenge defendants’ decision to terminate any particular grant awards,” the plaintiff states’ filing says.
What People Are Saying
New York Attorney General, Letitia James, told a news conference on January 28 that the plaintiff states would fight Trump’s freezing of all federal grants. “We will not stand for any illegal policy that puts essential services for millions of Americans at risk. Our lawsuit will seek a court order to immediately stop the enforcement,” she said.
At her first ever news conference on January 28, White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt defended the freezing of federal grants. “I think this is a very reasonable measure,” she said, adding that it would help the Trump administration become “good stewards for tax dollars.”
What Happens Next
McConnell must decide whether to lift his preliminary injunction on Trump’s federal grant freeze. That decision is expected in the coming week. His ruling is expected to address the April 4 Supreme Court decision in the education grant case.
