Clause has been used to limit spending in crime prevention, food security, and scientific research
Boston judge Indira Talwani has struck another blow against the US administration by deciding that it cannot use a vague agency priorities-related clause to justify funding cuts amounting to billions, reported The Associated Press.
The clause, which was introduced in 2020, stipulates that federal agents may pull a grant if an initiative “no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities,” per AP News. A suit filed by 23 states last year accused the US government of restricting spending in areas like crime prevention, food security, and scientific research through the clause.
The suit indicated that the government was using the clause to terminate grants for the first time. The states described the Office of Management and Budget’s budget cuts as a “nationwide slash-and-burn campaign” and expressed concern that the clause would be weaponized to negate existing and future grants, per a snippet of the suit published by AP News.
Talwani’s summary judgment also rejected the government’s motion to dismiss the case.
“Defendants’ interpretation of the Termination Clause is not clearly supported by the text of the provision, runs counter to the regulatory scheme, receives no support in the rulemaking history, and would violate the Spending Clause’s requirement that conditions be imposed unambiguously,” Talwani wrote in her decision, a snippet of which was published by AP News.
New Jersey attorney general Jennifer Davenport described the ruling as “an important win for all New Jerseyans” in a statement published by AP News. She said Talwani’s judgment confirmed that the US government violated the law.
“Instead of working with us to keep the public safe and lower costs for hardworking New Jerseyans, the Trump Administration has recklessly and illegally gutted federal funding for public safety, disaster preparedness, scientific research, clean water, and more,” Davenport said in a statement published by AP News. “The President and his allies cannot hold critical programs hostage to their personal whims and political ideologies, destabilizing the country by yanking essential federal funding that was already awarded to the states.”
Federal government lawyers had said the states’ suit should be dismissed given that some of the grants had already been pulled and because the concern about future grants was the product of speculation.
“That mismatch between the allegedly unlawful agency ‘decision’ on one hand, and the amorphous relief requested in this suit, on the other, creates a set of jurisdiction and justiciability defects that doom this lawsuit at the threshold,” the lawyers wrote in their motion to dismiss, a snippet of which was published by AP News.
According to AP News, the Office of Management and Budget did not respond to a request for comment.
The agency priorities clause had been amended in 2024.
Last year, Talwani had challenged the US government over its decision to cut funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Earlier this year, she expressed her intent to issue a temporary restraining order against the government in relation to the Family Reunification Parole program.
