Rhode Island Federal Judge Further Blocks Trump’s Federal Funding Freeze

In the case of State of NY versus Trump, filed in the Southern District of New York, 19 blue states are challenging Trump Administration having access and giving access to DOGE of Treasury Dep’t databases.

Todat, the Court entered a preliminary injunction barring freezing/termination etc. of federal grants and contracts.

The Washington Times:

A federal judge declared Thursday that President Trump’s attempt to pause potentially trillions of dollars in government grants and contracts violates the Constitution and cannot proceed.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. is the stiffest legal spanking yet for Mr. Trump’s spending plans.

Judge McConnell said the Constitution gives Congress the power to spend taxpayers’ money and the president has only limited leeway — where Congress specifically delegates it

Trump’s broad freeze goes well beyond what Congress has allowed, the judge ruled.

“Here, the Executive put itself above Congress. It imposed a categorical mandate on the spending of congressionally appropriated and obligated funds without regard to Congress’ authority to control spending,” said Judge McConnell, the chief federal district judge in Rhode Island.

He previously issued a restraining order on Mr. Trump’s spending pause, but his latest ruling converts that into a preliminary injunction, which is a more lasting legal bar to the president’s action.

It also gives the president a sturdier legal ruling to appeal to higher courts.

Link to today’s preliminary injuction::

JOHN J. MCCONNELL, JR., United States District Chief Judge.
The Executive’s categorical freeze of appropriated and obligated funds fundamentally undermines the distinct constitutional roles of each branch of our government. The interaction of the three co-equal branches of government is an intricate, delicate, and sophisticated balance—but it is crucial to our form of constitutional governance. Here, the Executive put itself above Congress. It imposed a categorical mandate on the spending of congressionally appropriated and obligated funds without regard to Congress’s authority to control spending. Federal agencies and departments can spend, award, or suspend money based only on the power Congress has given to them–they have no other spending power. The Executive has not pointed to any constitutional or statutory authority that would allow them to impose this type of categorical freeze. The Court is not limiting the Executive’s discretion or micromanaging the administration of federal funds. Rather, consistent with the Constitution, statutes, and caselaw, the Court is simply holding that the Executive’s discretion to impose its own policy preferences on appropriated funds can be exercised only if it is authorized by the congressionally approved appropriations statutes. Accordingly, based on these principles and the reasons stated below, the Court grants the States’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

Professor Margo Cleveland explains

“This is case where judge had to walk back his order because Trump Administration was canceling pursuant to legal authority. That is still permitted. What Court appears to have done instead of noting that, though, injunctive language is bar the “categorical” freeze, etc.

So Trump Administration would remain free to cancel grants/contracts based on change in policy where they do it based on individual grants. Court also denied stay pending appeal. I don’t see this injunction tying Trump’s hands because of its limit to “categorical” freezes.

That might dissuade Trump from pushing too hard for a stay pending appeal.”

Former Federal prosecutor, Shipwrecked:

This lawsuit is much more problematic for the Trump Administration than the USAID spending suit.

This involves funds appropriate by Congress that are to be sent to states — you have direct Congressional action, unlike USAID which is just a huge pot of money with USAID and the State Department left with making decisions about how to spend it.

More background on these lawsuits:

Secret Blue State and Left-Wing Resistance Agreement Obtained – @DOGE and @elonmusk
We have obtained a secret agreement between 14 blue states, left wing groups, and NYC law firms to conduct coordinated lawfare against DOGE and Elon Musk.

This agreement, signed less than… pic.twitter.com/Xyu63lerl8

— Oversight Project (@OversightPR) March 6, 2025

We have obtained a secret agreement between 14 blue states, left wing groups, and NYC law firms to conduct coordinated lawfare against DOGE and Elon Musk.

This agreement, signed less than a month after the creation of DOGE, is written in the broadest possible terms and shows that these resistance actors wasted no time in fighting the will of the American people to reduce wasteful government spending.

As the President  pointed out in the Joint Address to Congress, these states want to keep spending YOUR tax dollars on wasteful programs like:

– $22 billion from HHS to for free housing and cars for illegal aliens;
– $101 million for DEI contracts at the Department of Education;
– $45 million for DEI in Burma;
– $40 million to improve the social and economic inclusion for sedentary migrants;
– $8 million for LGBTQI+ promotion in Lesotho;
– $60 million for Indigenous peoples and Afro-Caribbean empowerment in Central America;
– $8 million for making mice transgender;
– $32 million for left-wing propaganda in Moldova;
– $10 million for male circumcision in Mozambique;
– $20 million for Arab “Sesame Street” in the Middle East;
– $59 million for illegal alien hotel rooms in NYC;
– $14 million for social cohesion in Mali;
– $42 million for social and behavioral change in Uganda;
– $14 million for improving public procurement in Serbia; and
$47 million for improving learning outcomes in Asia.

@DOGE
‘s work to date is just the tip of the iceberg of the billions of dollars of federal waste, fraud, and abuse. The American people voted for more responsible spending in Washington. These blue states are doing everything in their power to stand in the way.