CNN
–
Three different federal judges made legal retreats and slaps on President Donald Trump during an hour and a half Tuesday, challenging the controversial moves taken early in his second term. In the case,
The decisions from judges in Washington, DC and Washington are the latest to put the brakes on Trump’s agenda, and the key role the court has sparked for Trump’s enemy, who is trying to frustrate his actions. It emphasizes.
In DC, Judge Lauren Alican issued a preliminary injunction that would indefinitely prevent the administration from freezing federal grants and loans. The ruling expands the previous block with former President Joe Biden appointees issued last month shortly after the White House ordered a fundraising freeze.
“The easiest thing to do is freeze it wasn’t difficult from the start. The accused want to suspend federal spending up to $3 trillion in virtually overnight, or within 24 hours, each federal agency has We were hoping to review all of its grants, loans and funds for compliance. The range of that order is almost immeasurable,” Alican wrote in her ruling.
She went on to say that the freeze on spending was “irrational, rude and caused a nationwide crisis.”
The issue of withholding federal funds has been a major flashpoint during the opening week of Trump’s second term, with other pending cases in the White House’s decision to suspend all foreign aid. I’m disagreeing.
Shortly before Alican issued her sentence, Judge Amir Ali, another jurist in the DC Federal Court, said by Wednesday night that he would have foreign aid-related money to pay government contractors and nonprofits. I ordered them to pay. USAID and State Department funding.
The order has repeatedly accused the administration of the plaintiffs of their lawsuit of failing to comply with Ali’s previous temporary restraining orders that revive the funding agreements and grants that existed at the end of the Biden administration. I was forced to take responsibility for this.
Ali – also Biden’s appointee – rejected previous calls by the challenger and refused the administration was depleted for the alleged violation. However, he issued a new order, on stronger terms, requiring the government to pay contractors and nonprofits for work already completed by February 13th.
Meanwhile, across Washington, a federal judge in Seattle issued a preliminary injunction Tuesday halting Trump’s executive order to suspend hospitalizations and funding for refugees.
Judge Jamal Whitehead, also appointed by Biden, said Trump’s “action amounts to an effective nullification of Congress’ will in establishing a national refugee hospitalization program.”
“The president has considerable discretion to suspend hospitalizations for refugees, but that authority is not limitless,” the judge said.
Trump’s executive order was signed on his first inauguration day, and also directed a review of the refugee program, saying resettlement should only resume if it is deemed “national interest.” Critics argue that it is a de facto ban on refugees.
The administration faces at least 80 cases of challenging various actions taken during Trump’s first weeks of office.
The plaintiffs behind these challenges have achieved some success as they pressed the judge to issue emergency relief early in the suit. But the White House also won several court victory in lawsuits opposed the administration’s efforts to reduce federal workers and shutter US foreign aid agencies.
Many cases have finally received more thorough reviews by judges who are pondering whether to issue a preliminary injunction to block contested government actions. Such decisions are often final court-level rulings issued before being appealed by the loser.
As Alikhan explained why he issued a provisional injunction in a fundraising freeze case, she said the nonprofit that brought the case could succeed in their claim that the freeze was illegal. He said it was expensive.
“What the scope of power (the Office of Management and Budget) is trying to assert is “breathing,” and the impact is enormous,” she wrote. “There is no clear statutory hook against this broader claim of power, so the plaintiff is likely to succeed in the merits of this claim.”
And Alican pointed out that this is exactly what her previous order temporarily halted the fundraising freeze.
“What the relief plaintiffs are now seeking is a more durable version of relief that they wanted when their members were on the verge of extinction,” she wrote. “In short, the plaintiffs have argued for important evidence that the funding freeze is economically devastating and fatal in some circumstances.”
CNN’s Tierney Sneed and Angelica Franganillo Diaz contributed to this report.
This story has been updated with additional details.
