Local governments score win in case over conditions on federal grants

(CN) — Cities and counties across the nation scored another win Tuesday against the Trump administration after a federal judge in Washington state ruled the president can’t impose “hotly contested political conditions” on grant funding already allocated by Congress.

The case — initially filed in May by local governments including King County, Washington; San Francisco; Boston and New York City — has now grown to include some 60 jurisdictions. Together, they argued that the U.S. Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Transportation and Health and Human Services have imposed improper conditions on billions of dollars of grants.

U.S. District Judge Barbara Rothstein had already granted the plaintiffs a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, which paused the government’s imposition of the new conditions. However, after more plaintiffs joined the suit, they argued that federal authorities continued to impose the same improper conditions and sought to widen their scope.

“Congress, as the branch of government constitutionally entrusted with the power of the purse, has long made critical investments in programs to end homelessness, strengthen communities, and improve local infrastructure,” the Jimmy Carter appointee said in her Tuesday ruling granting another preliminary injunction. “And under the Constitution, it is Congress — not the president — that has the authority to make those judgments.”

Called unlawful by the plaintiffs, funding restrictions included using grant funds to promote “gender ideology,” to fund or promote elective abortions, to promote “illegal immigration” or to enable policies that shield noncitizen residents from deportation.

The grants run the gamut, including dollars for people facing homelessness. That money ensures governments can provide programs for affordable housing, community development and homelessness assistance services.

In one example, the judge noted that the housing and urban development office threatened to disallow funding to Petaluma, California, because it supposedly included in its plans references to “equity,” “environmental justice,” “transgender or gender non-conforming,” and “undocumented individuals.” The federal agency gave the city and other jurisdictions two days to remove such language.

“Plaintiffs assert that loss of this funding would disrupt the lives of … plaintiffs’ most vulnerable residents, likely leading to evictions and increased homelessness and further straining local resources,” Rothstein said. “According to plaintiffs, even a temporary loss of funding would set back efforts to create and preserve affordable housing, ameliorate homelessness, and house low-income individuals living with HIV/AIDS.”

Other threatened funding included money for tuberculosis prevention, along with public health preparedness and response. Like other federal agencies, the health and human services department began attaching conditions to its grants. The department required grant awardees to prohibit any funds going toward diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

The plaintiffs argued the conditions applied to the grant money violated the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine and went beyond the authority held by Congress. As she did in an earlier order, Rothstein agreed.

The judge also found that a federal agency has no authority to condition grants on prohibiting DEI, gender ideology or elective abortion.

“At most, the defendants rely on reference to the Trump administration’s executive orders to justify the imposition of the challenged funding conditions, but as this court previously stated ‘rote incorporation of executive orders — especially ones involving politically charged policy matters that are the subject of intense disagreement and bear no substantive relations to the agency’s underlying action — does not constitute ‘reasoned decision-making,’” the judge said.

Plaintiffs praised the ruling in public statements.

“King County continues to stand strong in defense of the law, our residents, our values, and the right of local governments to make decisions based on the needs of their communities,” King County Executive Shannon Braddock said. “This case is about far more than individual grants. It’s about whether a presidential administration can bypass Congress and attach unlawful conditions to funding that communities depend on for essential services.”

San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu said the grants provide money that support housing for the vulnerable, effective transportation and early childhood development.

“These new grant conditions not only violate the Constitution, but they also have nothing to do with the purpose or performance of these grants,” Chiu said.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Western District of Washington declined to comment.