Judge blocks Trump funding freeze—again—in lawsuit brought by New York

ALBANY, N.Y. (NEXSTAR) — A federal judge in Rhode Island issued an injunction—or temporary restraining order—blocking the Trump administration from continuing a broad freeze on federal funds, ruling that the action violated federal law on March 6. The decision affects billions of dollars in funding for programs like healthcare, education, infrastructure, and public safety, with New York among the states affected.

“The Trump administration’s illegal funding freeze jeopardized law enforcement funding, essential health care and childcare services, and other critical programs that millions of Americans rely on,” read a statement from Attorney General Letitia James announcing the ruling, which you can read at the bottom of this story. “Today, we secured another court order to block the administration’s funding freeze while our lawsuit progresses. The power of the purse belongs to Congress—not the President.”

The injunction followed a lawsuit filed by New York and several other states, arguing that the administration's freeze was arbitrary and unlawful. John McConnell, Jr.—the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for Rhode Island—agreed, finding that executive orders behind the freeze contradicted well-established laws about congressional responsibilities. According to the ruling, agencies can't withhold funds appropriated by Congress just to align with the president's goals, and so doing represents a violation of the separation of powers.

"The Executive’s categorical freeze of appropriated and obligated funds fundamentally undermines the distinct constitutional roles of each branch of our government," read McConnell's order. "The Executive put itself above Congress. It imposed a categorical mandate on the spending of congressionally appropriated and obligated funds without regard to Congress’s authority to control spending. Federal agencies and departments can spend, award, or suspend money based only on the power Congress has given to them—they have no other spending power. The Executive has not pointed to any constitutional or statutory authority that would allow them to impose this type of categorical freeze."

That freeze disrupted programs that rely on federal grants, like Medicaid, Head Start, job training, and infrastructure projects. Uncertain officials at state agencies couldn't make plans that depended on those funds, with major delays to research projects, pollution cleanup projects, and grid resilience upgrades. Some childcare providers considered layoffs or closures over the freeze.

New York’s Office of Children and Family Services was among the first to feel the freeze when it couldn't access funds on January 28. A message in the Payment Management System cited "potentially unallowable grant payments" under new executive orders as the reason for the delay. The state lost federal money we'd already been promised, creating budget shortfalls and disrupting services.

Although the court had already issued a temporary restraining order, the feds still withheld the funds. New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation, for example, was denied reimbursement for plugging abandoned oil and gas wells, and grants for water quality projects remained on hold.

McConnell ruled that the funding freeze caused "irreparable harm" by disrupting essential public services across industries in several states. The court also rejected the administration’s argument that agencies needed time to review spending, noting that there was no clear process or timeline for restoring funds.

The injunction forces the administration to resume payments, but questions remain about enforcement. While some money had started flowing again, agencies continue dealing with administrative roadblocks and have no guarantee against future freezes.

Besides New York, Rhode Island, and Washington, D.C., several other states—California, Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin—signed on to the lawsuit. Take a look at the ruling below: