Bay Area Cities Ask US Judge to Block Trump From Cutting Funds Over DEI, Immigration

U.S. District Judge William Orrick did not issue a ruling during Wednesday’s hearing, but he appeared poised to grant the municipalities’ request for a preliminary injunction — under a narrow scope. He said if the cities and counties had applied for a specific grant that had a condition related to one of the policy issues in the suit, there is a threat of harm that gives the city or county the right to bring the motion.

He raised questions about whether the municipalities had standing to bring a case regarding grants that they hadn’t yet applied for, signaling that he might instead plan to expand his injunction to applicable grants whenever the cities or counties do apply in the future.

“If I was a municipality, I wouldn’t be all that concerned about what I am going to do,” he said during the brief hearing.

Orrick said he would issue a written order “as soon as possible,” after prosecuting attorney Jim Ross noted that cities and counties have to finalize their budgets for the coming fiscal year before July.

The suit is one of many filed across the U.S. stemming from President Donald Trump’s threats to withhold federal funding from local governments that don’t comply with the administration’s policy views on diversity, equity and inclusion, gender and immigration enforcement.

The directives — which include the “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders” and “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” orders issued last year — call for the heads of federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice and Department of Interior, to include terms in their grants and contracts that prohibit recipients from operating DEI programs and “promot[ing] gender ideology,” and require that they comply with federal immigration officials.

The suit alleges that the orders’ vague and ambiguous language violates the Constitution’s Due Process and Spending clauses, and allows the administration to condition funding as a “mechanism of retaliation” against municipalities that have viewpoints or policies that don’t align with the administration’s. They also say that DHS’s updated “standard terms and conditions” require entities to violate their sanctuary policies, and other departments’ new grant and contract terms similarly restrict funding for entities that support DEI initiatives or transgender people in violation of antidiscrimination laws.

The plaintiffs have asked the court to establish that the funding conditions are unlawful and unconstitutional, and prohibit the administration from conditioning congressionally authorized funds on those requirements.

“The Constitution vests Congress — not the Executive — with the authority to make laws and

appropriate federal funds,” the suit said. “While the Executive Branch is charged with faithfully executing the laws enacted by Congress, that duty does not include the power to unilaterally rewrite or expand the statutory terms under which federal funds are awarded.

“These actions exceed Defendants’ constitutional and statutory authority, erode the separation of powers, and disregard core constitutional and statutory protections,” it continues.