By David Thomas
June 5 (Reuters) – A judge on Friday blocked the U.S. Department of Agriculture from withholding tens of billions of dollars in federal funds from states unless they complied with the Trump administration’s policies on immigration enforcement, transgender people and other issues.
U.S. District Judge Myong Joun granted the preliminary injunction sought by Democratic attorneys general from 20 states and the District of Columbia. Joun, appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden to the federal court in Boston, said he would issue a memorandum explaining his decision at a later date.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell celebrated the ruling in a post on her Bluesky social media account, writing, “These grants are a lifeline — I’ll always fight to protect food assistance for families.”
Spokespersons for the Justice Department and USDA did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Friday’s ruling is one of several court decisions that have blocked the Trump administration’s efforts to place new conditions on grants that would align funding with the Republican president’s priorities.
The Democratic-led states and the capital district alleged that Trump’s new requirements would jeopardize funding already approved by Congress to feed low-income families and support farmers. The states receive more than $74 billion annually from USDA.
USDA at the end of last year said states must certify compliance with federal “policies” to receive funding. The attorneys general alleged that USDA’s requirement was too vague and would require them to comply with unrelated matters outlined in Trump executive orders concerning “gender ideology,” immigration, transgender athletes and diversity, equity and inclusion.
USDA’s conditions could affect nutrition programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the anti-poverty food stamp program, as well as the school lunch program and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, the plaintiffs said. They alleged the USDA lacked authority to impose the new conditions, which they say violate the U.S. Constitution’s Spending Clause and went into effect without going through required legal procedures.
The Trump administration contends that if states are required to abide by federal antidiscrimination laws and regulations in order to receive funds, it should also apply to other “policies.”
The case is Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al., vs. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, No. 1:26-cv-11396.
For the states: Nita Klunder of the Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General, Vikas Didwania of the Office of the Illinois Attorney General and Brian Bilford of the California Department of Justice
For the U.S. Department of Agriculture: Michael Fitzgerald of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts
(Reporting by David Thomas; Editing by Sergio Non and William Mallard)
Comments