PROVIDENCE, R.I. (WPRI) -- A Rhode Island federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s push to freeze federal assistance, even though the president attempted to downplay the directive earlier this week.
Rhode Island U.S. District Chief Judge John McConnell issued the order Friday afternoon, granting 23 Democratic states' request for a temporary restraining order. The request was filed earlier this week in response to a controversial memo that directed all U.S. agencies to freeze federal-assistance funding, grants and loans.
McConnell ordered that while his decision is in place, the Trump administration cannot "pause, freeze, impede, block, cancel, or terminate" its obligations to provide federal financial assistance to the states, "except on the basis of the applicable authorizing statutes, regulations, and terms."
The judge said the decision was based on the Trump administration's actions to unilaterally suspended federal funds without citing any legal authority; set conditions on congressionally approved funds in violation of federal law and rules; and threaten states' "ability to conduct essential activities."
"Congress has not given the executive limitless power to broadly and indefinitely pause all funds that it has expressly directed to specific recipients and purposes and therefore the executive's actions violate the separate of powers," McConnell added.
His decision was lauded by state attorneys general, including R.I. Attorney General Peter Neronha, whose team took lead in arguing on behalf of the states.
“I am grateful for Judge McConnell’s careful consideration of this matter and for seeing the irreparable harm that this directive would cause, and frankly has already caused, Americans across the country,” Neronha said in a statement.
“Make no mistake: this federal funding pause was implemented to inspire fear and chaos, and it was successful in that respect," he added. "These tactics are intended to wear us down, but with each legal victory we reaffirm that these significant and unlawful disruptions won’t be tolerated, and will certainly be met with swift and immediate action now and in the future.”
The memo sparked backlash, confusion and multiple lawsuits across the country, including the one filed by the states in Rhode Island U.S. District Court. A federal judge in Washington D.C. granted a stay in a similar case earlier this week.
The Trump administration has since rescinded the controversial memo, but state attorneys have argued that the move didn't necessarily mean the newly sworn-in president wasn't working toward freezing Congress-approved funds anyway.
The states pointed to comments made by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, transcripts of press briefings and, most recently, emails sent to two states by the federal Environmental Protection Agency.
The emails told state officials that ongoing federal grant funding wouldn't be disbursed because of the memo. The emails were sent after the administration announced they were rescinding the directive, according to the states' attorneys.
Daniel Schwei, an attorney representing the Trump administration, has argued a review of federal funding is warranted to ensure the spending of taxpayer dollars aligns with the president's policies and priorities.
"The President of the United States, along with the chief agency responsible for overseeing expenditures -- the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) -- plainly have authority to direct agencies to fully implement the President’s agenda, consistent with each individual agency’s underlying statutory authorities," Shwei wrote in a memo opposing the order.
Schwei argued the restraining order was moot because the underlying directive had been rescinded. He also said the order was was too broad, shouldn't apply to the president and could negatively affect the federal government's ability to disburse funds.
If granted, Schwei urged McConnell to modify the order, so that it didn't interfere with any President Donald Trump's many executive orders, and he signaled that the administration would appeal the decision.
"The court's order should make clear that it does not prohibit agencies from implementing the president's executive orders to the extent permissible within the agency's underlying statutory authorities," he added.
McConnell nonetheless granted the order, and further prohibited the Trump administration from reissuing a new directive that freezes funds "under any other name or title." He gave the Trump administration until 9 a.m. Monday to provide written notices of order to federal agencies.
His decision sets the stage for both sides to next argue whether the court should impose a preliminary injunction to block Trump funding-freeze policies. McConnell said a hearing would be set "shortly."
“Today’s court decision reaffirms that the president cannot unilaterally take away federal funding, especially resources that our kids, seniors and economy rely on," Mass. Attorney General Andrea Campbell said in a statement.
"His reckless actions unleashed chaos and confusion yet demonstrated the enormous power of attorneys general to fight back," she added. “My office will keep fighting to protect Massachusetts residents from these egregious and unlawful abuses of power.”
This is a breaking news story. It will be updated.
Eli Sherman (esherman@wpri.com) is a Target 12 investigative reporter for 12 News. Connect with him on Twitter and on Facebook.
Tim White (twhite@wpri.com) is Target 12 managing editor and chief investigative reporter and host of Newsmakers for 12 News. Connect with him on Twitter and Facebook.