Judge McConnell’s Friday order does not block the Trump administration from continuing its review, only from defunding those programs that fail its tests in the states that sued — New York, California, Illinois, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin, along with the District of Columbia.
In that sense, it may create a divide between Democratic states that will continue to have funds flowing and Republican states that will still face uncertainty.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Rob Bonta, attorney general for California, said in a statement that he was “grateful for the court’s decision.” He accused the Trump administration of “intentionally creating chaos” and “attempting to sow fear and confusion in our communities.”
The series of executive orders mandating reviews of existing programs are still in force. The litmus tests range from the specific, such as ending assistance to sanctuary cities that decline to help with immigration enforcement and rescinding subsidies for electric vehicles, to the opaque, such as defunding “infiltration” of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, “environmental justice” and schools that teach “subversive, harmful, and false ideologies.”
The Supreme Court already answered the question of whether the president can withhold congressionally allocated money in 1975, said David A. Super, a professor at Georgetown Law. That was when the court found that President Richard Nixon could not direct the Environmental Protection Agency to withhold money allocated to cities for sewers and sewage treatment under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
In a recent ruling, a federal judge has ordered the White House to continue providing funding to 22 states that were at risk of losing critical financial support. The decision comes after the White House attempted to cut off funding to these states, citing disagreements over policy and budgetary issues.
The judge’s ruling ensures that essential services, such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure projects, will continue to receive the necessary funding to operate effectively. This decision is a major victory for the residents of these 22 states who rely on these services to maintain their quality of life.
The White House has been given a deadline to comply with the judge’s order and resume providing funding to the affected states. Failure to do so could result in further legal action and potential consequences for the administration.
Overall, this ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of maintaining financial support for critical services that impact the lives of millions of Americans. It is a testament to the power of the judicial system in upholding the rule of law and ensuring that essential services are not disrupted due to political disagreements.
Tags:
- Federal judge ruling
- White House funding
- State funding
- Money flow
- Legal decision
- Government funding
- Court mandate
- Financial support
- State budgeting
- Judicial order
#Federal #Judge #Orders #White #House #Money #Flowing #States
