General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo, the Judge issued a TRO against
Trump's freeze, and a second Judge apparently is ready to do so. 22 states were in on the suit, and California is on the list. So far, so good.

allegorical oracle
(3,918 posts)Leavitt predicted that they'd prevail.
poli-junkie
(1,193 posts)W_HAMILTON
(8,671 posts)FB47243
(48 posts)New Haven
(1,083 posts)I've often thought how much fun we could have by only speaking in acronyms. It doesn't have to make sense, clarity is not important. I would be looking for speed and character count. My wife usually sends me out of the room when I begin to talk this way. My apologies to all here I couldn't stop myself.
Wiz Imp
(3,427 posts)A 2nd U.S. judge says Trump administration must pause its federal spending freeze (This was Judge McConnell)
From X at 12:17 today
JMCKUSICK
(843 posts)Was go ahead, stop us, but then issue a stay so we can continue on. The absurdity is astonishing.
Wiz Imp
(3,427 posts)Federal Grant Funding: A Thaw in the Freeze?
The Legal Battle Continues A coalition of Democratic Attorneys General filed a lawsuit in Rhode Island earlier this week to oppose the OMB Memo and associated funding freeze.1 The judge in that case held a hearing to determine whether the legal challenge was moot, given the rescission of the OMB Memo. Citing communication from the press secretary, Judge McConnell indicated a willingness to still enter some kind of protective order related to the actions underlying the OMB Memo, even if the OMB Memo itself had been rescinded. Late afternoon on January 31, Judge McConnell issued a temporary restraining order in this case, which will last through a hearing and decision on the states motion for a preliminary injunction.2 On the morning of February 3, the DOJ responded with a notice of compliance outlining the Administrations response to the TRO.
What Now? Whatever the final legal outcome from the Rhode Island case, it seems clear that the Executive Branch is intent on reviewing federal grant programs for compliance with its policy directives. We know, based on OMBs rescinded Memo, the initial list of programs on the Administrations radar. Subject to any final disposition in the AG suit, we expect additional action in the coming weeks and months with respect to these programs, and providers should be aware of the potential impact on their organizations up to and including the inability to access funds previously appropriated and awarded.
They are absolutely entitled to review grant programs as detailed in the highlighted passage. What they aren't entitled to do is stop that funding that has already been appropriated during that review. Courts have already reviewed this issue multiple times in the past and always decided against the current position held by the Trump administration.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(27,088 posts)I doubt that one restraining order will make any difference. Unless somehow one order freezes every single order made so far. Which I doubt.
Wiz Imp
(3,427 posts)Courts have ruled against the administration's position numerous times in the past so they really shouldn't have a leg to stand on. I expect the courts to rule that way again. We'll see how the Trump administration reacts to that if/when that happens.
louis-t
(23,947 posts)That is my message every, all day. He's suing media companies who 'weren't nice to him.' ABC caved. Shame on them. CBS might cave. Shame on them. Stop settling with him. I wrote to Disney and told them I'm disgusted. I will write to CBS and ask them to not settle.
Baron2024
(1,025 posts)I am glad that the Judge issued a TRO. The trick will be enforcing it. The Trump Regime does not have the legal authority to do these things, but they may have the power to do so. I think that it is important to note that these are not official acts by the Trump Musk Regime. The power and authority of the Presidency derives from the Constitution. Any act that violates the law and the Constitution is outside of the normal powers of the President and his agents.
So I do not believe that the broad Supreme Court ruling on the expansive powers of the President is valid. That ruling needs to be revisited and challenged. It might not happen in the near future, given the conservative control of the SCOTUS, but I think that we should try and challenge this doctrine however we can and whenever we can. No illegal or unconstitutional act can be considered an official act. No President should be above the law, and neither should his agents in the Executive branch.
Wiz Imp
(3,427 posts)Another Judge Halts Trumps Federal Funding Freeze
Skittles
(161,521 posts)NOTHING they are doing is legal
DENVERPOPS
(10,649 posts)That the United States Supreme Court is a wholly owned Corporate Subsidiary of the New Republican Party.......
And anyone who thinks that "States Rights" matter, to the USSC, please review the "Florida States Rights" in 2000 and what happened with the Presidential Election.........
We should just start calling the United State of America, THE UNITED CORPORATIONS OF AMERICA