The Trump administration had tried to argue the issue was moot.
WASHINGTON—District of Columbia District Judge Loren Alikhan said she was inclined to issue a temporary restraining order following a Feb. 3 hearing over the spending freeze directed by the Trump administration.
She’s expected to release an order later in the afternoon to coincide with the scheduled expiration at 5 p.m. ET of another administrative block she placed on the freeze last week.
The Trump administration argued that the issue was moot because the original lawsuit, which came from the National Council of Nonprofits and other groups, targeted a memo from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that had since been rescinded.
During remarks from the bench, Alikhan said she was inclined not to find the case moot and expressed concern that the administration had continued to implement a freeze based on the memo. She referenced individuals being unable to access funding platforms with federal agencies.
Judge John J. McConnell pointed to a social media post from White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, who said a federal funding freeze was still in effect. McConnell said the rescission was “in name only and may have been issued simply to defeat the jurisdiction of the courts.”
“The substantive effect of the directive carries on,” he said.
Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney Daniel Schwei told Alikhan that the executive orders referenced by the OMB memo allowed for spending pauses and that the plaintiffs had not proven that the remaining freezes were attributable to the OMB memo.
McConnell’s order, he said, was also phrased in a way that obviated the need for her to issue another order of her own. He said relief, if provided at all, should be explicitly directed at individuals who had demonstrated they were harmed by the freeze rather than blocking the administration’s actions more broadly.
Part of Schwei’s argument was that the plaintiffs were asking for such extraordinary relief that would see the court superintend all federal assistance and intrude on the executive’s authority.
Alikhan seemed skeptical of his arguments and said at the hearing’s conclusion that she thought factors such as the public interest weighed in favor of issuing a temporary restraining order.
Schwei argued that agencies had their own discretion in handling funding, but Kevin Friedl, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, disagreed that the government’s actions could be attributed to agencies acting independently.
He pointed to claims that organizations were prohibited from accessing funding portals and said the Trump administration had implemented a mechanism for instituting blanket freezes rather than targeting individual grants. Alikhan responded in part by telling him that he made a good point.
Schwei indicated that the government would appeal a block issued by Alikhan, telling her that the administration would like a stay pending appeal or at least an administrative stay to allow the government to seek emergency relief.
