Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Freeze on Climate, Infrastructure Grants

The judge said an agency following the president’s direction “cannot permanently hamstring two statutes passed by Congress during the previous administration.”

On April 15, a federal judge blocked the Trump administration from freezing payments for funds for climate and infrastructure grants and found suspending payment funds illegal.

The nonprofit that sued the administration over the freeze presented evidence that the indefinite freeze of money already awarded was arbitrary and whimsical in violation of federal law, US District Judge Mary S. McElroy said in a 63-page ruling that entered preliminary injunctions against the US Department of Agriculture and five other agencies.

Earlier this year, two laws were passed in Congress and signed by former President Joe Biden, with funds awarded under the Infrastructure Investment and Employment Act and the Inflation Reduction Act. They cited President Donald Trump’s January 20th order, directing all agencies to suspend payments through the law to see if the funds match the law and Trump’s agenda.

The Woonasquatucket River Basin Council and other groups suing the award have allegedly banned arbitrary and whimsical behavior and argued that such action can be set aside in court, claiming that the freeze violated the Administrative Procedure Act.

Frozen “Blackly arbitrary and whimsical is blatantly arbitrary and whimsical because it reasonably expects it to utilize open funding awards to provide services and cannot explain the substantial trust benefits of other recipients that it requires,” the group said in the injunction move.

Government lawyers told the court that Congress gave the agency discretion to select from among eligible recipients of funding assigned by law.

“The Plaintiff’s Reverse Theory – that this court should continue to fund existing grants, even if it contradicts the president’s priorities, will raise a significant separation of concerns of power,” they said.

McElroy said the court cannot determine whether the president’s policies are sound, but it must consider the legality of the policies when constitutionally necessary.

“The agency has no unlimited authority to promote the president’s agenda, nor does it have the freedom to permanently hamstring the two laws passed in Congress during the previous administration,” she wrote.

The judge also said that the agency is likely to be able to suspend funds on a case-by-case basis, but that those “narrower forces cannot justify the exercise of the broader powers they argued.”

The White House did not respond to requests for early morning comment.