A federal appeals court rejected the Trump administration's attempt to reinstate a sweeping pause on federal funding, siding with a lower court judge who found the administration had not fully complied with an earlier order. The decision follows a legal battle concerning a controversial memo that aimed to halt all federal grants and loans, prompting chaos and lawsuits from numerous Democratic states. While the administration rescinded the memo, a judge maintained that not all funding had been restored, leading to the appeals court's intervention.
A federal appeals court on Tuesday rejected a Trump administration push to reinstate a sweeping pause on federal government programs, a decision that comes after a judge found the administration had not fully obeyed an earlier order. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals turned back the emergency appeal, though it said it expected the lower court judge to act quickly to clarify.
The Justice Department had asked the appeals court to let it implement sweeping pauses on federal grants and loans, calling the lower court order to keep promised money flowing “intolerable judicial overreach.” That ruling came from U.S. District Court Judge John McConnell in Rhode Island, the first judge to find that the administration had disobeyed a court order. He is presiding over a lawsuit from nearly two dozen Democratic states filed after the administration issued a boundary-pushing memo purporting to halt all federal grants and loans, worth trillions of dollars. The plan sparked chaos around the country. The administration has since rescinded that memo, but McConnell found Monday that not all federal grants and loans had been restored. Senate Republicans vow action to boost border funds after briefing with Trump officials Money for things like early childhood education, pollution reduction and HIV prevention research has remained tied up even after his Jan. 31 order halting the spending freeze plan, the states said. McConnell, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, ordered the Trump administration to “immediately take every step necessary” to unfreeze all federal grants and loans. He also said his order blocked the administration from cutting billions of dollars in grant funding from the National Institutes of Health, a move announced last week. The Justice Department said McConnell’s order prevents the executive branch from exercising its lawful authority, including over discretionary spending or fraud. “A single district court judge has attempted to wrest from the President the power to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed.’ This state of affairs cannot be allowed to persist for one more day,” government attorneys wrote in their appeal. The states, meanwhile, argued that the president can’t block money that Congress has approved, and the still-frozen grants and loans are causing serious problems for their residents. They urged the appeals court to keep allowing the case to play out in front of McConnell. The court battle is unfolding as a string of court losses is increasingly frustrating top administration officials by slowing President Donald Trump’s wide-ranging agenda. Judges have also blocked, at least temporarily, Trump’s push to end birthright citizenship for anyone born in the U.S
FEDERAL FUNDING TRUMP ADMINISTRATION APPEALS COURT LEGAL BATTLE DEMOCRATIC STATES EXECUTIVE BRANCH
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Appeals Court Rejects Trump Administration's Bid to Pause Funding FreezeA federal appeals court rejected the Trump administration's request to pause a lower court order that temporarily halted a large-scale freeze on federal funding. The court determined the administration did not provide sufficient justification for the stay. Lawyers for the Justice Department argued the lower court's order was vague, but the appeals court suggested patience, stating they expect further clarification from the District Court.
Read more »
Appeals Court Rejects Obama-Era DACA PolicyA federal appeals court ruled against an Obama-era policy that protected immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children, dealing a setback to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. While the decision doesn't immediately affect current beneficiaries, the inability to accept new applications raises concerns about the program's future.
Read more »
Appeals Court Rules Against DACA, Setting Up Potential Supreme Court ShowdownA federal appeals court dealt a blow to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, ruling against an Obama-era policy that shielded young immigrants who arrived in the U.S. illegally as children. The decision, which bars the federal government from accepting new DACA applications, could lead to another Supreme Court battle over the program's future.
Read more »
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Slams Appeals Court for Ignoring Legal PrecedentIn a strong dissent, Justice Thomas criticized the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for its handling of a case involving David Smith, an Ohio man convicted of multiple crimes. Justice Thomas argued that the court's interpretation of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) was flawed and disregarded Supreme Court precedent.
Read more »
Trump asks appeals court to reconsider overturning $5 million E. Jean Carroll verdictThe court ruled last month that Trump failed to prove he deserved a new trial.
Read more »
Georgia Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Some Charges Against Trump in Election Interference CaseA Georgia appeals court has upheld the dismissal of some charges against President-elect Donald Trump and others in the election interference case, but left in place other counts. The court's decision regarding the dismissal of certain charges, including soliciting public officers to violate their oaths, stemmed from a lack of sufficient detail regarding the nature of the violations. The future of the case remains uncertain as the Georgia Court of Appeals previously removed District Attorney Fani Willis from the case due to an “appearance of impropriety.” While Willis seeks to overturn this ruling, Trump's lawyers maintain that her disqualification is warranted. The Georgia Attorney General will now decide on the next steps, potentially appointing a new prosecutor to continue the case or dismissing it entirely.
Read more »