Key facts
- A judge blocked the U.S. Department of Agriculture from withholding federal funds from states.
- The withheld funds were contingent on compliance with Trump administration policies on immigration and transgender issues.
- The ruling was a preliminary injunction sought by Democratic attorneys general from 20 states and the District of Columbia.
- Plaintiffs argued the USDA lacked the authority to impose these new conditions.
- The states alleged the new requirements would jeopardize funding for nutrition programs and farmers.
U.S. District Judge Myong Joun has blocked the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) from withholding tens of billions of dollars in federal funds from states unless they complied with the Trump administration's policies on immigration enforcement, transgender people, and other issues. The judge granted the preliminary injunction sought by Democratic attorneys general from 20 states and the District of Columbia. The ruling is one of several court decisions that have blocked the Trump administration's efforts to place new conditions on grants. The Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia alleged that Trump's new requirements would jeopardize funding already approved by Congress to feed low-income families and support farmers. The states receive more than $74 billion annually from USDA. The USDA had stated that states must certify compliance with federal 'policies' to receive funding. The attorneys general argued that the USDA's requirement was too vague and would force them to comply with unrelated matters outlined in Trump executive orders concerning 'gender ideology,' immigration, transgender athletes, and diversity, equity, and inclusion. The plaintiffs stated that the USDA's conditions could affect nutrition programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the school lunch program, and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. They further alleged that the USDA lacked the authority to impose the new conditions, which they claim violate the U.S. Constitution's Spending Clause and went into effect without required legal procedures. The Trump administration contended that if states are required to abide by federal anti-discrimination laws and regulations to receive funds, it should also apply to other 'policies.'