Good afternoon: I have a couple of federal funding updates: 1. First, I wanted to be sure people saw the Executive Order dated 8/7 entitled "Improving Oversight of Federal Grant Making". You can review the EO here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/08/improving-oversight-of-federal-grantmaking/ Among other things, the EO directs agencies to appoint a senior official to review all funding opportunities to ensure they are consistent with the administration's priorities. The EO indicates that until the process is in place to review new funding opportunities, agencies shall not issue any new funding opportunities. It also directs that discretionary awards must advance the President's policy priorities and may not be used to fund, promote, encourage, etc. racial preferences, illegal immigration, or "denial by the grant recipient of the sex binary in humans or the notion that sex is a chosen or mutable characteristic." The EO also directs that the Director of OMB shall "revise the Uniform Guidance and other relevant guidance to streamline application requirements and to further clarify and require all discretionary grants to permit termination for convenience, including when the award no longer advances agency priorities or the national interest, but subject to appropriate exceptions, including agreements entered into in furtherance of international trade agreements or those awarded by the Department of Commerce under title XCIX of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Public Law 116-283), the CHIPS Act of 2022 (Public Law 117-167), or division F of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Public Law 117-58)." Sec 6. Also directs each agency head to review its standard terms and conditions within 30 days to ensure they allow for discretionary grants to be terminated for convenience and when the award no longer advances the agency's priorities as described in 2 CFR 200.340a. 1. In New York v. Trump, the states that sued OMB based on the "temporary federal funding freeze" have filed their brief in the First Circuit, which you can access here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca1.52591/gov.uscourts.ca1.52591.00108323143.0.pdf. The brief addresses the merits as well as the jurisdictional and procedural arguments raised by the defendants in the case. 1. In California v. McMahon, the education funding case, the parties had filed a joint motion to extend the briefing time for the plaintiffs' PI motion based on the defendants' announcement that it would release all the funds at issue in the case. As of 7/31 when that join motion was filed, not all the funds had been released but the defendants had represented that they anticipated the funds would become available by the end of that week. The plaintiff States then withdrew their motion for a PI on 8/5, presumably because all of the funds had been released, though the motion to withdraw the PI does not state that. 1. In Washington v. FEMA, the court allowed the States' motion for a PI and preliminary enjoined the federal government from spending the funds allocated to FEMA's BRIC program for any non-BRIC purposes. The court concluded the claims were ripe even though the federal government had argued it had not made a final determination about canceling the BRIC program. The court based its conclusion on evidence presented by the States, including the Congressional report of the Disaster Relief Fund for June 30, 2025 which shows a net gain of $4.07 billion in that account and a corresponding net loss in the BRIC account. The court then rejected the defendants' standing and sovereign immunity arguments. In terms of the PI factors, the court found the States were likely to succeed on the merits and that they had demonstrated a realistic existence of irreparable harm. On the merits, the court rejected the federal government's contention that it had not engaged in final agency action based on the affirmative steps the agency took. And the court found Congress had not vested the agency with discretion to reallocate BRIC funds. You can read the PI decision here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70807946/79/state-of-washington-v-federal-emergency-management-agency/ 1. Here is the States' Memorandum of Law in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment in New Jersey v. OMB, the case challenging the federal government's use of challenges 2 C.F.R. § 200.340(a)(4) to terminate grants. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.286247/gov.uscourts.mad.286247.67.0.pdf 1. I am sharing a new Governing for Impact Issue Brief entitled "Seeking Remedies in Impoundment Cases When Funding Is Poised to Expire": https://governingforimpact.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Impoundment-Remedies-final.pdf [logo]<https://imla.org/> [facebook icon]<https://www.facebook.com/InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation/>[twitter icon]<https://twitter.com/imlalegal>[linkedin icon]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./> Amanda Karras (she/her) Executive Director / General Counsel International Municipal Lawyers Association P: (202) 466-5424 x7116 D: (202) 742-1018 51 Monroe St. Suite 404 Rockville, MD, 20850 Plan Ahead! See IMLA's upcoming events<https://imla.org/events/>, calls and programming.