Good afternoon: Here are a few federal funding & immigration updates. 1. Funding. The states filed their brief to the First Circuit in New York v. Trump, the case involving the federal funding freeze that took place back in January. You can find it here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca1.52591/gov.uscourts.ca1.52591.00108315290.0.pdf. The statement of the issue on appeal is: "Whether the district court abused its discretion in preliminarily enjoining defendants' unreasoned and unlawful categorical freezes on billions of dollars in federal funds." As you'll recall, the district court entered a preliminary injunction in the case, concluding the OMB directive likely violated the APA. That decision left open the ability of agencies to exercise any actual authority under applicable statutes, regulations, and grant terms. The States point out that that order has not prevented federal agencies from making other decisions regarding funding / spending, but has prevented them from unlawfully instituting wholesale funding freezes that rest on no authority. The States' brief addresses the federal government's mootness and Tucker Act arguments, as well as the merits. 1. Funding. I am attaching the Reply Brief in support of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Appalachian Voices v. EPA, the class action filed related to EPA grant terminations. You may recall the defendants argued that the case was moot due to a recission package in H.R. 1 (the "big beautiful bill" passed on 7/4). The plaintiffs argue, among other things, that H.R. 1 did not rescind the grants at issue and the vast majority of $3 billion remains obligated and the defendant's attempt to terminate the grants did not de-obligate them. 1. Funding. On 7/15/15, HHS noticed its appeal to the First Circuit in State of Colorado v. U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services, the case involving HHS' termination of $11 billion in public health grants. 1. Funding / Immigration. In California v. DOT, the court entered the following text order extending the PI to Washington DC and Kentucky: "TEXT ORDER granting 62 Motion to Amend the Preliminary Injunction: Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Preliminary Injunction 62 is GRANTED. The Plaintiff has shown through their submission that the preliminary injunction should apply to newly added Plaintiffs the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Kentucky for all the reasons the Court has previously ruled the preliminary injunction should apply to the original state Plaintiffs. The Defendants produced no counter evidence." (Recall that this PI extends to not only the States that sued, but their governmental subdivisions as well. So local governments in KY are now covered by this order). 1. Funding / Immigration. The federal government filed a motion to dismiss in New York City v. Trump, the case concerning the federal government clawing back of funds from NYC related to the FEMA Shelter Services Program (SSP). The defendants argue the case should be governed by the Tucker Act and that grant funding decisions are committed to agency discretion and not reviewable under the APA. The brief argues on this point: In Lincoln v. Vigil, the Supreme Court underscored that the APA, by its own terms, "preclude[s] judicial review of certain categories of administrative decisions that courts traditionally have regarded as 'committed to agency discretion.'" 508 U.S. 182, 191 (1993) (quoting Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 817 (1992)). Lincoln held that an agency's "allocation of funds from a lump-sum appropriation" is one such "administrative decision traditionally regarded as committed to agency discretion," given that "the very point of a lump-sum appropriation," the Court explained, "is to give an agency the capacity to adapt to changing circumstances and meet its statutory responsibilities in what it sees as the most effective or desirable way." Id. at 192... That same principle applies to the discretionary grant funding at issue in this case. The terminated grants are not prescribed by any federal statute or regulation in terms of whom the recipients are. Nor has FEMA received funding through targeted appropriations that require awarding a grant to Plaintiff. The defendants also argue that NYC failed to state a claim that the defendants acted contrary to law because, they argue, the Impoundment Control Act and the DHS Appropriations Acts do not confer rights that may be enforced by APA suits. Here is a link to the Motion: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69663207/53/city-of-new-york-v-trump/. Our next immigration call is Wednesday, 7/23 at 2 pm eastern. You can use the following zoom link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/81204530388 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.