Daniel R. Walworth – 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.

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.

August 21, 2024 by Daniel R. Walworth

Massachusetts Attorney General Reaches $600 Million Settlement with Tobacco Companies

On August 12, 2024, the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, announced that it had reached a settlement for in excess of $600 million with tobacco manufacturers. The settlement resolves several years’ worth of disputes between the Attorney General’s Office and tobacco manufacturers concerning annual payments arising from a 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA). That 1998 MSA required tobacco manufacturers to make annual payments to address the public health effects from smoking and the marketing of tobacco products. The $600 million settlement resolves disputes in arbitration about amounts withheld from those annual payments to states. In announcing the settlement, the AGO emphasized that it is “part of the AGO’s ongoing efforts to improve public health.”