Federal judge says Trump uses executive orders to usurp Congress

(CN) — A Rhode Island federal court on Friday permanently blocked the Trump administration from implementing an executive order that sought to strip federal agencies in charge of funding for things like libraries and museums to the studs.

The injunction stems from a lawsuit filed in April by 21 state attorneys general challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order titled “Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy.”

The March order directed seven federal agencies to cut their staff and functions within seven days to “the minimum presence and function required by law,” a move that would have gutted programs supporting libraries, museums, minority-owned small businesses, labor groups and people experiencing homelessness.

U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr., a Barack Obama appointee, issued a temporary injunction in May, finding the order unlawfully intruded on Congress’ authority. He barred its enforcement against the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the Minority Business Development Agency and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.

On Friday, McConnell Jr. sided with the states again and issued a permanent injunction preventing the implementation of the executive order.

“By now, the question presented in this case is a familiar one: may the Executive Branch undertake such actions in circumvention of the will of the legislative Branch? In recent months, this court — along with other courts across the country — has concluded that it may not. That answer remains the same here,” McConnell Jr. said in his opinion.

As a threshold matter, McConnell Jr. said the states’ accusation that the Trump administration unconstitutionally implemented the executive order presents a “classic constitutional question” squarely within a federal court’s role.

Although the federal government challenged the states’ standing and the court’s jurisdiction, McConnell Jr. made clear the claims were proper and that the court’s authority over the issues was absolute.

On the merits, he echoed the reasoning as seen in the preliminary injunction. The executive order, he said, offered no rationale or even minimal analysis, and its sweeping termination of grants and programs — along with firing 80–90% of affected agency staff — had a substantial impact on states. Those actions, he concluded, were clearly arbitrary and capricious.

McConnell Jr. charged that the order was also contrary to the law — named agencies were forced to abandon all operations without considering alternatives and to flout Congress’ directives by eliminating programs and rescinding appropriations without congressional approval.

Taken in all, the order usurps Congress’ power of the purse, encroaches on legislative authority to create and abolish federal agencies and tramples liberty, according to McConnell Jr.

“Defendants would like this court to believe that the president and his subordinates merely acted in excess of their statutory authority, making judicial review unavailable under Dalton,” McConnell Jr. said. “But this is a grossly inapt comparison given that no statute entrusts the executive with discretion to unilaterally dismantle [federal agencies].”

The states said implementing the executive order before the temporary injunction put severe strain on the three agencies singled out in their suit, all of which were named as defendants.

According to a human resources letter filed with the complaint, the Institute of Museum and Library Services placed its entire staff on paid leave and briefly halted all grant operations, including the Grants to States Program used in all 50 states.

The small business development agency — created in 2021 under President Joe Biden to assist minority-owned businesses — also put all but three employees on paid leave to comply with Trump’s order, the states said.

A memo from the labor dispute mediation agency similarly reported that all public-sector services were frozen, leaving workers in limbo during disputes with their employers.

These, McConnell Jr. said, are very real consequences that warrant permanent injunction.

The Trump administration argued before the court that blocking the order would itself be a violation of the separation of powers, a point on which McConnell Jr. offered a grave warning.

“As Justice Kennedy has observed, ‘liberty is threatened’ when ‘the decision to spend is determined by the Executive alone … Money is the instrument of policy and policy affects the lives of citizens. The individual loses liberty in a real sense if that instrument is not subject to traditional constitutional constraints,” McConnell Jr. said.

The injunction is a significant victory for Democrats attempting to undo the flurry of executive orders issued by Trump after taking office, many of which have been similarly restrained by judges across the country.

The states involved in the suit include Rhode Island, New York, Hawaii, California, Wisconsin, Michigan and many others.

“Each of these agencies serve a vital role that the president cannot simply erase with the stroke of a pen,” said Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha in a statement. “With this order, these agencies can continue to serve our communities, whether through your neighborhood library, labor dispute arbitration or support for small business.”

Follow @desdev5