Good afternoon: I have a couple of updates on federal funding, immigration, and DEI: 1. DEI / Funding (IRA / IIJA Funding). The court issued an order in Sustainability institute v. Trump, which is the case brought by a coalition of local governments and nonprofits challenging the funding freezes related to grants under the IRA and IIJA. You can read the decision here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.scd.301710/gov.uscourts.scd.301710.157.0_1.pdf Based on the defendants' representations that they no longer contest the merits of the plaintiffs' APA claims for 32 out of 38 grants at issue in the case, the court entered judgment on those claims in favor of the plaintiffs. One of the grants that the defendants were apparently no longer contesting liability under the APA on the merits was the termination for the EPA's Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grants, which totaled $2.8 billion in funding appropriated by Congress. In its decision, the court notes that it had ordered the defendants to produce documents related to "freezing, pausing, and/or terminating of grant funds to the grant recipients who are parties to this litigation" after the defendants claimed that there was no "singular freeze" but that the decision was made on dividual basis (for thousands of recipients). The court notes that the defendants produced "thousands of documents, not one showing any individualized review of decisions to freeze or terminate grants of the Plaintiffs in this action." At this point, the defendants apparently began funding 14 of the 38 grants at issue in this litigation, terminated 4, and were processing the termination of 6 more. The court again ordered the defendants to produce all documents related to the proposed terminations to determine if they were individualized. Again, the court found the documents showed no individualized review had occurred before the grants were terminated. On this point the court notes: "The Court finds it hard to believe that numerous active federal grants, some totaling millions of dollars, were summarily terminated by a high-ranking government official without the production of a single document to detail the review and decision making process." It was after this point (and the last business day before the PI hearing) that the defendants informed the court that they no longer contested the judgment on the merits of the APA claims for 32 out of 38 awards. As to these 32 grants, the court provides: The 32 APA claims in which Defendants no longer contest were part of the widespread agency action freezing or terminating grants that were funded by mandatory congressional legislation, primarily the IRA and IIJA. These grants were funded by legislation that mandated that the funds be expended for a specific purpose and left no discretion to agency heads to disregard the legislative mandates because current officials did not approve of the purposes of the previously appropriated programs. Plaintiffs have produced substantial, highly persuasive evidence to support their claims that their grant funds were frozen and/or terminated because Defendants disfavored previously authorized congressional appropriations and that such actions were outside of the legal authority of the agency Defendants and in violation of the Constitution's separation of powers. Plaintiffs focus their APA claims primarily on statutory provisions which prohibit agency actions which are "not in accordance with law" or which are "contrary to" any constitutional right or power. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (B). Based on the full record and the concession of the Defendants on May 16, 2025 (Dkt. No. 153), the Court hereby enters judgment for Plaintiffs on the 32 grants no longer contested. As to the scope of the relief, the court's decision was limited to the plaintiffs and the court directed the defendants to immediately restore plaintiffs access to the grant funds and enjoined them from further freezes / terminations with regard to these grants. The court denied the defendants' motion for a stay of the injunctive relief pending appeal. The defendants instead challenged the court's jurisdiction under the APA as to those 32 grants. The court had previously found it likely had jurisdiction under the APA and rejected the court's Tucker Act arguments in an earlier order that I had shared. But it also addressed a new rationale for its jurisdiction provided by the plaintiffs: the court's "nonstatutory review jurisdiction for equitable relief against federal officials in their official capacities on the basis that those federal officials exceeded the scope of their authority and/or acted unconstitutionally by failing to "faithfully execute[]" the laws of the United States. U.S. Const. Article II, Section 3." In this case, the court found that the plaintiffs' separation of powers and ultra vires claims "plainly state a claim for nonstatutory review" and that it has jurisdiction over those claims. The court also rejected the defendants' standing arguments and the defendants' arguments that the court should enter a bond to cover the costs of the damages if the government is ultimately found to have prevailed. Instead, the court imposed a nominal bond of zero dollars. Finally, the defendants did continue to contest their liability under the APA as to 6 grants that were funded by general appropriations to USDA. These grants, the defendants, argue, were from general appropriations and not a part of any mandatory legislation. The court found the plaintiffs could not meet the likelihood of success standard to entitle them to a preliminary injunction as to these grants given the explanation provided by USDA (that 65% of federal grants under the particular program must go to producers / farmers). The court noted that with a fuller record, the plaintiffs may be able to prevail, but on the record before it, they could not meet their burden. 1. Funding / Immigration. In the California v. DOT, case the court determined that the case should not be consolidated with State of Illinois et al v. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1. Funding / Immigration / DEI. A member noted they received amendments to its FY22 grant agreements for its Safe Streets for All grants. The revised general terms and conditions along with exhibits for FY22, FY23, and FY24 are available here<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.transportation.gov_grants_ss4a_grant-2Dagreements&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=jblVzryv37xz6dGHTIBd0omyr7IZ_ghleJygNWPo2JE&m=ddMd2ruqbOKJG84Asa0yitlceKt8xA0RIa-drEZ1rZSSzFIBpsdk1pFENLankZyd&s=trr0mdD4Mevb2IbdAO0O_-f_2UKp5cUNFWRj3__7LXI&e=>. Section 24.2 includes changes related to immigration and DEI. 1. Immigration. Here is the recording of the LGLC webinar on immigration if you missed it: https://www.naco.org/event/impacts-federal-immigration-policy-local-governments-part-2<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.naco.org_event_impacts-2Dfederal-2Dimmigration-2Dpolicy-2Dlocal-2Dgovernments-2Dpart-2D2&d=DwMGaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=jblVzryv37xz6dGHTIBd0omyr7IZ_ghleJygNWPo2JE&m=m2VNxNYpA-BV1RJM7dXw478-kp63VKpXavsZfkp-2GJulsJbZTOIqGdZRCzIo3H1&s=qqshtsOxuy2asnu0Iy5uqCdxo7d4_FB3YXO2AU_RbeU&e=> [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.