State Attorneys General Blog

March 7, 2025March 7, 2025 by Christopher H. Casey

District Court Orders Trump Administration to Release Federal Funding to States and Enjoins Implementation of Federal Funding Freeze

On March 6, 2025, Judge John J. McConnell of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted the Motion for Preliminary Injunction sought by 22 state attorneys general and the Attorney General for the District of Columbia challenging the Trump Administration’s “pause” or “freeze” of grant funding payments. The Court, ordered the Trump Administration to “release and transmit any disbursements to the States on awarded grants, executed contracts or other executed financial obligations that were paused on the grounds of the OMB Directive” and other related Executive Orders. In his 45-page order, Judge McConnell held that the Trump Administration’s freeze on federal funding “fundamentally undermines” the separation of powers.

In support of their motion, the state attorneys general presented evidence of the widespread effects of the federal funding freeze, which they said has impacted “nearly all aspects of the States’ governmental operations” and has inhibited the States’ “ability to administer vital services to their residents.” These harms, they argued, are a direct result of the efforts taken by the Trump Administration to withhold federal funds and implement the federal funding freeze.

March 4, 2025 by Katherine D. Brodie

State Attorneys General Urge Congress to Finish the Job on Retail Theft Legislation

On February 25, 2025, a bipartisan group representing a majority of state attorneys general sent a Letter to Congress urging bipartisan congressional action to address organized retail theft. Citing gains made in the last Congress with the introduction of the Combating Organized Retail Crime Act of 2023 and the Organized Retail Crime Center Authorization Act of 2023, the Letter explains that the legislation is needed to provide necessary state and federal resources to curtail organized retail crime and the violence associated with it in communities across the country. Impacted retailers include Walgreens, Walmart and Target, which have had to close stores and ramp up security to protect employees and stem losses, with total financial losses from organized retail theft amounting to over $121 billion. The Letter notes that approximately 76% of store managers report impacts on their employees.

Federal legislation is needed, according to the authors, because the problem is larger than state resources available. The states seek greater cooperation with federal law enforcement through a proposed Organized Retail Crime Coordination Center at the Department of Homeland Security to address the complexity and scope of the organized retail crime problem, which also includes supply chain infiltration by organized crime. The states urge Congress to strengthen federal penalties for supply chain thefts and to appropriate additional funding to the states for law enforcement.

The letter is signed by attorneys general from Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, U.S. Virgin Islands, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Washington, D.C., and West Virginia.

February 25, 2025February 26, 2025 by Karen Lehmann Alexander

Multistate Coalition of Attorneys General Issue Guidance on DEI/DEIA Employment Initiatives Following Executive Order

On February 13, 2025, a coalition of 16 Attorneys General issued a document titled “Multi-State Guidance Concerning Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Employment Initiatives” (“Guidance”). The stated purpose of the Guidance is “to help businesses, nonprofits, and other organizations operating in our respective states understand the continued viability and important role of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility efforts” after private sector participants raised concerns about the continued viability of such policies and programming following an Executive Order that purports to target “illegal DEI and DEIA policies” across a wide range of organizations.

The Guidance reports that “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility best practices are not illegal,” and that “the federal government does not have the legal authority to issue an executive order that prohibits otherwise lawful activities in the private sector or mandates the wholesale removal of these policies and practices within private organizations[.]” The Guidance contends that diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility initiatives help businesses prevent workplace discrimination and are consistent with federal and state law. The Guidance concludes with a list of best practices for diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility in the areas of recruitment and hiring, professional development and retention, and assessment and integration.

The Attorneys General for the states of Massachusetts, Illinois, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont joined in the Guidance. The full text can be found here.

Meanwhile, on February 21, 2025, in Nat’l Assoc. of Diversity Officers in Higher Ed. v. Trump, D. Md, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland issued a preliminary injunction that blocks, at least for now, some of the more salient provisions of the executive order that affect federal contractors and other private sector employers. In particular, the court took issue with the constitutionality of the certification and enforcement threat provisions (anchored in the False Claims Act). An analysis of the implications of the injunction for employers and others may be found here.

February 24, 2025February 24, 2025 by Daniel R. Walworth

Court Extends TROs Enjoining Enforcement of NIH Rate Change within 22 Plaintiff States

By Dan Walworth, Rolando Sanchez, Frederick Ball, Geoffrey Goodale and Sara Smith

Since taking office, the Trump Administration has taken steps to reshape the United States’ federal funding infrastructure. One such action relates to the National Institutes of Health’s (“NIH”) rate change, imposing a 15% cap for indirect costs, for new grants and for existing grants awarded to institutions of higher education (“IHEs”). This rate change, which represents a drastic reduction from historical rates normally negotiated by grant recipients, will impact ongoing research programs and clinical trials, and will have a long-term impact on the United States’ research infrastructure and abilities.

On February 10, 2025, the day the rate change was intended to go into effect, three lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts challenging the rate change. The lawsuits were filed by a group of stakeholders, including twenty-two states, thirteen universities, three university associations and five associations. Also on February 10, 2025, a district court judge granted two temporary restraining orders (“TROs”), enjoining enforcement of the rate change within the 22 Plaintiff states, and enjoining enforcement nationwide with respect to institutions. On February 21, 2025, following a hearing on the Plaintiffs’ motions for injunctive relief, the district court ordered that the TROs entered on February 10, 2025, are extended and will remain in effect until further order of the Court.

February 11, 2025February 11, 2025 by Daniel R. Walworth

Court Rules Trump Administration Violated TRO Enjoining Administration’s Funding Freeze

On February 10, 2025, Judge John McConnell of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted the motion of the state attorneys general for enforcement of the January 31, 2025, temporary restraining order (TRO) relating to the Trump Administration’s proposed “pause” or “freeze” of federal grant funding payments.

The January 31, 2025, TRO prohibits all pauses or freezes on federal funding based on the OMB Directive. Judge McConnell found the Trump administration in violation of this TRO. His February 10, 2025, order provides that “[t]he States have presented evidence in th[eir] motion that the Defendants in some cases have continued to improperly freeze federal funds and refused to resume disbursement of appropriated federal funds.” Such pauses in funding violate the express terms of the TRO, the Court said.

The February 10, 2025, order requires the Trump administration, during the pendency of the TRO, to restore frozen funding, to end any federal funding pause, to take every step necessary to effectuate and comply with the TRO, to immediately restore withheld federal funds, and to resume the funding of institutes and agencies, such as the National Institute for Health.

February 6, 2025February 6, 2025 by Christopher H. Casey

State Attorneys General Diverge on Birthright Citizenship Executive Order

On January 23, 2025, Judge John C. Coughenour of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted a TRO in one of two cases (in Massachusetts and Washington federal courts) brought by attorneys general of 22 states and the District of Columbia to enjoin implementation of a Trump Administration Executive Order concerning “automatic” birthright citizenship. The Order, set to take effect on February 19, 2025, absent an injunction, directed federal agencies not to issue citizenship documents to those born in the United States to a mother who is unlawfully present or lawfully present on a temporary basis and a father who is neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

In advance of preliminary injunction hearings in the Western District of Washington scheduled for February 6, 2025, a second group of 18 state attorneys general have filed an amici curiae brief in that district, opposing the preliminary injunction being sought by the other AGs. The amici AGs opposing the injunction includes the Attorneys General of Iowa, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and Wyoming.

On February 5, 2025, Judge Deborah Boardman of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted a nationwide injunction halting the Executive Order in a separate suit brought by immigration advocacy groups. The preliminary injunction hearings in the two cases brought by the state AGs are still scheduled to go forward.

February 3, 2025February 3, 2025 by Daniel R. Walworth

Court Grants State Attorneys General TRO Enjoining Administration’s Funding “Freeze”

On January 31, 2025, Judge John McConnell of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted the TRO sought by 22 state attorneys general and the Attorney General for the District of Columbia challenging the Trump Administration’s “pause” or “freeze” of grant funding payments.

The Court found that the attorneys general had a likelihood of success on the merits on their claims that the pause violated the Administrative Procedure Act, is arbitrary and capricious; violates separation of powers; and violates the Constitution’s Spending, Presentment, and Take Care clauses. The Court reached its determination “[b]ecause of the breadth and ambiguity of the ‘pause,’” and therefore anchored its reasoning “based on the effect it will have on many—but perhaps not all—grants and programs it is intended to cover.”

In rejecting the Administration’s argument that the Rescission Memo from OMB mooted the case, the Court relied upon a tweet by the White House Press Secretary –and an email from the EPA sent after the Rescission Memo stating that money would not be disbursed while the EPA determined how to implement the funding “freeze” memo from OMB. The Court found that “the OMB Directive that the States challenge here [is] still in full force and effect.”

To address the Administration’s statements that the “freeze” or “pause” would continue notwithstanding the Rescission Memo, the scope of the TRO prohibits the Trump Administration Defendants from “reissuing, adopting, implementing, or otherwise giving effect to the OMB Directive under any other name or title or through any other Defendants (or agency supervised, administered, or controlled by any Defendant), such as the continued implementation identified by the White House Press Secretary’s statement of January 29, 2025.”

January 30, 2025February 11, 2025 by Daniel R. Walworth

Federal Judge in State AG Suit Signals Intention to Enjoin Funding Freeze, Despite Second OMB Memo Rescinding Prior Memo Directing Freeze

In the suit brought in federal district court in Rhode Island by a group of 23 state attorneys general to challenge the Trump Administration’s cessation of federal funding payments, District Court Judge John McConnell Jr. indicated on Wednesday, January 29, 2025, the Court’s intention to grant the TRO sought by the State AGs. An injunction in the State AGs’ suit would follow an injunction granted by a D.C. District Court on Tuesday, January 28, 2025, in a suit challenging the funding freeze brought by a group of not-for-profit entities.

Despite a two-sentence memo issued by the White House Office of Management and Budget stating that the prior funding freeze memo was “rescinded,” the Court reportedly described the OMB’s memoranda as “hugely ambiguous,” and relied upon statements of White House Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, in indicating the Court’s intention to grant the injunction.

Press Secretary Leavitt tweeted that the memo rescinding the funding freeze memo did not, in fact, lift the freeze, but only rescinded “the OMB memo.” Leavitt made clear on behalf of the administration that the freeze remained in effect, but only “the memo” was rescinded to “end any confusion created by” the D.C. District Court’s injunction.

January 29, 2025January 30, 2025 by Christopher H. Casey

State Attorneys General File Suit Challenging President Trump’s Freeze on Federal Grants and Loans; D.C. District Court Judge Temporarily Blocks Freeze

On January 28, 2025, attorneys general from 22 states and the District of Columbia filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island seeking a temporary restraining order against the Trump Administration’s proposed spending freeze on federal grants and loans. The state attorneys general include New York, California, Illinois, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. The complaint alleges that the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) proposed pause on federal spending violates the Administrative Procedure Act because it is contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious, the Separation of Powers doctrine because it usurps the legislative function, and the Spending, Presentment, Appropriations, and Take Care Clauses of the United States Constitution.

Also on January 28, 2025, several nonprofit organizations, led by the National Council of Nonprofits, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking a temporary restraining order “to maintain the status quo until the Court has an opportunity to more fully consider the illegality of OMB’s actions.” The plaintiffs allege that the OMB’s proposed spending freeze violates the Administrative Procedure, is contrary to the First Amendment, and exceeds OMB’s statutory authority. Judge Loren AliKhan—just one day after OMB issued the temporary pause, and shortly before it was to take effect—temporarily blocked the proposed pause, preventing the Trump Administration from implementing the spending freeze. Judge AliKhan’s temporary order will remain in effect until February 3, 2025, at 5:00 pm.

November 25, 2024 by Katherine D. Brodie

Large, Bipartisan Coalition of State Attorneys General Submits Comment in Support of FCC Robocall Mitigation Database Improvement Proposals

On November 12, 2024, under the leadership of the National Association of Attorneys General, 47 state AGs joined in a Comment responsive to the Federal Communications Commission’s recent proposals to increase accountability and accuracy in Robocall Mitigation Database (“RMD”) filings. See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Improving the Effectiveness of the Robocall Mitigation Database, WC Docket No. 24-213, et al., Adopted August 7, 2024.

The Comment notes that the RMD is an essential resource in State AGs’ efforts to combat illegal robocalls. Since 2021, providers have been required to register on the FCC’s database to operate as a voice service provider in the United States. The registration process, according to the Comment, has not prevented bad actors from obtaining legitimate registrations to send illegal robocalls.

The Comment notes that information submitted by providers to the RMD can often be false or inaccurate to the detriment of consumers. Such deficiencies can include false, incomplete, or misleading contact information, blank or inapplicable mitigation plans, and representations which are contradicted by other FCC filings or publicly available sources.

The coalition of AGs supports FCC proposals that include additional procedural measures after submission of required information to RMD; potential technical solutions to identify and require correction of data discrepancies in filings; measures to increase accountability for providers that submit inaccurate and false information to the RMD or fail to update their filings when the information they contain changes; and other steps to increase the effectiveness of the RMD as a compliance and consumer protection tool.

State AGs from the following States signed the submission: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.