Good afternoon: Thank you to those that were able to attend today's federal funding call and immigration calls. I have two updates (one that is new and the second that was discussed on our calls). After the call, I did learn of a new lawsuit filed by a coalition of states led by New Jersey. The case is New Jersey v. OMB. It is brought against OMB and other agencies / agency heads and challenges 2 C.F.R. § 200.340(a)(4) of the federal regulations, which provides that "federal agencies may terminate grants "pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Federal award, including, to the extent authorized by law, if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities." (the "Clause") The States argue the Clause has been incorporated into regulations promulgated by each of the defendant agencies and has been used to withhold billions in federal funding "any time they no longer wish to support the programs for which Congress has appropriated funding." The complaint lists out numerous instances in which the Clause was used to terminate grants to the plaintiffs. The States argue the use of the Clause to terminate grants violates the separation of powers, the Spending Clause, and the APA. The plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that the Clause and any agency regulations incorporating the Clause do not independently authorize the termination of grant awards. On the declaratory relief, the States seek a court order declaring: 2 C.F.R. § 200.340(a)(2) (2021), and Agency Defendants' parallel regulations: 1. Do not permit or authorize the termination of awarded grants on the basis that the grant "no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities" if the award terms and conditions do not "clearly and unambiguously specify" that the award can be terminated when it "no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities"; 2. Do not permit or authorize the termination of awarded grants where Congress has directed funds to be spent on particular grants, or where Congress has appropriated money for identified objectives and the agency seeks to substitute its own "agency priorities" for the objectives identified by Congress; and 3. Do not permit or authorize the termination of awarded grants based on new agency priorities identified after the time of the federal award. In the alternative, they seek an order vacating and setting aside the "Defendants' decision to invoke the Clause as grounds for terminating grants based on a change in agency priorities, a permanent injunction barring Defendants from implementing or giving effect to that decision, and an order vacating and setting aside of the Clause itself as arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act." Here is a link to the complaint: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/Agency%20priorities%20-%20Convenience%20clause%20complaint.pdf Also, as mentioned on today's calls, the parties in Illinois v. FEMA agreed to forego preliminary relief and requested expedited summary judgment briefing. You can read their joint status report here but the upshot is they are asking the court to rule by the end of September: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70251276/56/state-of-illinois-v-federal-emergency-management-agency/. Thanks, Amanda [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.