PROVIDENCE, R.I. (WPRI) -- Several state attorneys general won an initial victory Wednesday as they seek to block the Trump administration's push to freeze federal assistance, with a Rhode Island judge allowing their proposed court injunction to move forward.

Rhode Island U.S. District Chief Judge John McConnell said he agreed with state prosecutors, who made the case that their request for a federal temporary restraining order remained valid, despite the Trump administration rescinding a controversial memo that's at the center of the case.

The memo, issued Monday evening, directed all federal agencies to freeze federal-assistance funding, grants and loans pending a review from the Trump administration to ensure the money aligned with the many executive orders President Trump has signed since taking office last week.

The memo sparked backlash, confusion and multiple lawsuits across the country, including the request for a temporary restraining order that six attorneys general filed in federal court in Rhode Island. (The number of plaintiffs on Wednesday had grown to 23 states.) A federal judge in Washington, D.C., granted a temporary stay in a similar lawsuit heard on Tuesday.

The Trump memo served as the basis for the states' argument, with prosecutors saying the courts should order the temporary restraining order because the policy was illegal and unconstitutional.

But the relevance of the memo came into question after the Trump administration rescinded the directive earlier Wednesday. And Daniel Schwei, an attorney representing the Trump administration, argued the states' case was moot because the underlying directive no longer existed.

"The breadth of the relief the plaintiffs is taking is breathtaking," Schwei said.

McConnell pushed back, saying, "Respectfully, so was the breadth of [the] directive."

Rhode Island Assistant Attorney General Sarah Rice submitted a transcript from a Wednesday White House press briefing, along with a social-media post by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, as evidence the effort to freeze funding continued.

"This is NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze," Leavitt wrote in the post. “It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo. Why? To end any confusion created by the court’s injunction. The President’s EO’s on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented.”

Rice said that "whether it is by directive or silent command," the harm of the Trump administration actions was the same. And she asked McConnell to "hit the pause button."

McConnell sided with the states' argument, saying the exhibits showed the Trump administration's actions had the same effect as the directive, calling them "a difference without a distinction."

"I agree with the states," McConnell said.

McConnell didn't make an immediate decision, although he said the states' arguments would likely succeed. He asked the attorneys general to file a new proposed order for him to consider, then for the DOJ to respond within 24 hours.

If granted, he said the sides could move forward with arguments over whether the court should impose a permanent injunction to block the Trump funding-freeze policies. And he said there was no required timeline, but that he would look to move on the issue "expeditiously."