Cities, counties ask for extended block on ‘vague’ federal grant conditions

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — A group of cities and counties asked a federal judge Thursday to extend an existing preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration from imposing certain conditions on recipients of federal housing, transportation and other grants.

Led by Fresno, California, the coalition of U.S. cities, counties and other entities sued the government in August 2025, arguing federal agencies violated the Constitution by imposing “vague and unauthorized conditions” on federal grants to pressure the cities to comply with the administration’s policy preferences related to diversity, equity and inclusion,  “gender ideology,” “elective abortion” and federal immigration enforcement.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg, a Barack Obama appointee, issued a temporary restraining order that same month on the the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency.

In September, Seeborg granted the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, further blocking a majority of those agencies from imposing or enforcing the grant conditions, but said there was no evidence the EPA continued to enforce its policy conditions.

Now, the plaintiffs want the injunction extended for 14 cities and counties added to the lawsuit in February. Jacob Freitas of the Renne Public Law Group, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told Seeborg the added plaintiffs face the same harms as the original plaintiffs did — having unlawful conditions imposed on them and facing budgetary uncertainty.

“I don’t know how much more imminent the government would like us to get,” he said.

The plaintiffs had also added two additional Transportation administrations — the Federal Railroad Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration — as defendants.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jevechius D. Bernardoni argued the additional cities and counties are not facing the same irreparable harm as the original plaintiffs because many of the conditions they are challenging are already blocked by injunctions issued by other courts.

Seeborg noted courts often issue overlapping injunctions.

“Injunctions are issued based on different showings and could be very well overturned,” he said. “Your argument is if circumstances change and the appellate court reverses, therefore the injunction is vacated, that is when they have to bring a new motion?”

“Yes, at that point, then they would be able to show irreparable harm,” Bernardoni responded.

As to the government’s multiple motions to dismiss, Seeborg said he was inclined to deny the motion to dismiss for claim splitting, telling Bernardoni he was unsure how the government’s request the case should be transferred to the Western District of Washington or the District Court for the District of Columbia aligned with its prior arguments against consolidating the claims.

“I think that whatever court this proceeds in, you maintain the argument that you can’t put together in one case; different municipalities, different grant programs, different agencies. I assume you won’t give up those positions. If you are, that surprises me, because your whole position is premised on you can’t adjudicate all these claims together,” the judge said.

Bernardoni said the government believes the claims are improperly joined under one lawsuit, but if the court disagrees and decides to proceed with the case, it should be litigated in another district.

Seeborg was also skeptical about the government’s motion to dismiss claims against HHS and EPA for improper venue, as well as its motion to dismiss claims against the EPA because the agency’s DEI condition no longer exists in grant agreements.

However, Freitas told the judge just because those conditions have been revoked, it doesn’t mean they couldn’t be reinstated, as the president has not retracted his executive order directing agencies to eliminate DEI programs.

“It almost would require the rescinding of the executive order, and there is no indication that is going to happen,” Seeborg said, telling Bernardoni, “I realize that is above your pay grade.”

The judge further stated he was inclined to deny the plaintiffs’ request for a stay of the challenged agency action.

“The Supreme Court issued a clear directive that a single district court in one district that purports to cover an entire national issue of this kind, you’ve got to have a rare case to warrant doing that,” he said.

Seeborg did not indicate when he would issue an official ruling. He told the parties that following an order, he would wait to see how overlapping cases play out, including the government’s appeal of the preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit, before moving forward with additional hearings.

Representatives for the plaintiffs declined to comment.

Representatives for the Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment.

According to the plaintiffs — a coalition of California cities and counties, as well as St. Paul, Minnesota, Monroe County, New York and the Monroe County Airport Authority — in the initial complaint, Fresno received an email from the Department of Housing and Urban Development on Aug. 18 questioning the city’s certification that federal funds from the Community Development Block Grant would be allocated in accordance with the law.

The city claims the agency told it to remove all references to the words “equity,” “environmental justice,” and references to transgender people, and affirm Fresno would not use funds to promote “gender ideology,” as defined by Executive Order 14168 — or risk the government withholding funds.

Follow @mhattridge_