Ninth Circuit upholds block on federal grant conditions

In a split ruling, the majority of the Ninth Circuit panel found the Trump administration's conditions forced oppressive requirements on local governments.SEATTLE (CN) — The Ninth Circuit on Tuesday largely affirmed an injunction blocking the Trump administration from imposing grant conditions on local governments.“​​This appeal highlights the tension that arises when sweeping executive orders collide with statutory text,” U.S. Circuit Judge Margaret McKeown wrote on behalf of the majority.A coalition of local governments — including King County, Washington; San Francisco; Boston and New York City — sued last year, arguing that the U.S. Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Transportation and Health and Human Services imposed improper conditions on billions of dollars of grants.The 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.This past August, a federal judge in Washington ruled the Trump administration can’t impose “hotly contested political conditions” on grant funding already allocated by Congress.On appeal, the government argued the conditions were intended to ensure compliance with existing law, but the Ninth Circuit disagreed.“The majority of the conditions far exceed the limited authority set out by Congress and superimpose onerous requirements well after the government already awarded grant funds,” McKeown wrote.The Bill Clinton appointee noted the agencies’ position can be reduced to the excuse “the president made us do this.” She also noted the court is not meant to second-guess agency policy. However, the panel agreed with the lower court that nearly all of the challenged conditions go far beyond imposing existing legal obligations.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s order blocking the conditions except those that require compliance with federal antidiscrimination law and instructed the court to narrow the injunction.Specifically, the appeals court found an exception for antidiscrimination conditions for programs that receive federal financial assistance.“We see nothing wrong with conditioning grant funds on an assurance that recipients, consistent with Title VI, will implement programs that do receive such assistance in a nondiscriminatory manner,” McKeown wrote.The remainder of the conditions, however, remain blocked under the court’s ruling.“Whether they comply or refuse, the local governments face the ‘imminent harm’ of a ‘very real penalty,’” McKeown wrote. “The harm here particularly impacts vulnerable populations, critical programs, and ongoing services.”Some of the impacted programs include those for affordable housing, community development and homelessness assistance services. Other threatened funding includes money for tuberculosis prevention, along with public health preparedness and response, among other public health services.The local governments praised the Ninth Circuit ruling.“The federal government’s efforts to advance its anti-immigrant, anti-abortion, anti-transgender, and anti-DEI agenda through conditions on funding supporting important local government homelessness, transportation and infrastructure projects met a critical roadblock today: a federal court’s thoughtful application of the law,” Santa Clara County attorney Tony LoPresti said in an email.San Francisco said cities shouldn’t be forced to choose between their values and critical funding.“These grants provide billions in funding that help support some of our city’s most vital services, including health care, transportation, housing,” San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu said in a statement. “These grant conditions are not only illegal, but they also have nothing to do with the purpose or performance of these grants.”In a 20-page dissent, U.S. Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay suggested the appeals court overstepped its bounds and intruded on policymaking.“Too often it’s forgotten that the federal judiciary is the ‘weakest’ branch,” the Donald Trump appointee wrote, explaining the judiciary holds no power over the sword or the purse. “​​Unfortunately, those principles are forgotten here.”Bumatay argued Congress expressly allows both the Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to impose conditions requiring grant recipients to comply with the law.“​​The majority doesn’t like these conditions — apparently because ‘the president made [them] do this,’” Bumatay wrote. “But dislike for the president’s policies is no substitute for following the law.”For its part, the Department of Transportation celebrated the small win concerning the antidiscrimination conditions.“The administration remains committed to ensuring that taxpayer dollars are not used to implement illegal discriminatory practices that are designed to divide Americans,” a department spokesperson said in an email.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads