Cities win more relief from Trump’s DEI grant restrictions

SEATTLE (CN) — A federal judge on Monday blocked the Trump administration from imposing certain grant conditions tied to its interpretation of diversity, equity and inclusion and gender ideology.

“​​General grant administration authority and existing civil rights statutes do not authorize agencies to impose new, cross-cutting conditions untethered from the purposes Congress specified for the relevant grant programs,” U.S. District Judge Barbara Rothstein wrote in a 28-page opinion. “Nor do they authorize agencies to leverage congressionally appropriated funds to advance policy objectives that Congress did not impose as conditions on those funds.”

Seattle sued the Trump administration last July, challenging the implementation of two executive orders — “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” and “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” Specifically, the city claims the administration used those orders as a basis to transform grant programs into vehicles to enforce President Donald Trump’s policy agenda.

Along with naming Trump as a defendant, the city named multiple federal agencies that work with federal contractors or award grants, including the Department of Transportation, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Housing and Urban Development and others.

Seattle claims the federal defendants imposed unlawful conditions on federal grants. Cleveland, Columbus, Durham and Portland joined the lawsuit, as did the counties of Allegheny, Hennepin, Prince George’s and Ramsey.

Collectively, the cities and counties contend they are entitled to over $2 billion in federal grant funds they say are imperiled by the Trump administration’s new grant conditions.

Separately, the Seattle suburb of Shoreline sued the Department of Transportation over its new grant conditions stemming from the same executive orders.

Rothstein, a Jimmy Carter appointee, found the city and county plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their cases against the Trump administration since the challenged conditions are substantially similar to those she blocked last year in a separate case brought by local governments.

“Defendants still have not identified statutory authority permitting the relevant agencies to impose those conditions across the grant programs at issue, nor have they supplied a reasoned explanation tying those conditions to the statutory purposes of the affected grants,” Rothstein wrote.

Under the Trump administration’s new grant requirements, recipients must certify they don’t operate DEI programs that conflict with the administration’s view of antidiscrimination laws, agree that compliance with federal antidiscrimination laws is necessary for funding determinations and accept restrictions concerning “gender ideology.”

The grants at issue fund transportation infrastructure, emergency preparedness, housing and community development, public safety, health care, nutrition, workforce services, and other congressionally authorized programs.

Nowhere, Rothstein noted, does the Trump administration explain how the challenged DEI requirements or gender order restrictions further the statutory purposes of those programs.

Rothstein also concluded the conditions are both arbitrary and capricious and “bear no apparent relationship to the grant programs at issue.”

Plus, the cities and counties will be harmed unless the court blocks the enforcement, Rothstein found.

“​​The injury alleged here is the present and coercive choice defendants have imposed: Plaintiffs must either accept conditions they contend are unlawful and expose themselves to audits, repayment demands, termination, and False Claims Act consequences, or refuse the conditions and risk losing funds on which they rely to provide critical public services and complete ongoing projects,” Rothstein wrote. “That uncertainty is not abstract.”

While the Trump administration argued the block would interfere with the executive branch’s ability to effectuate policy, the court determined that that interest doesn’t outweigh the irreparable harm the cities and counties have shown.

Additionally, the federal government has no legitimate interest in enforcing grant conditions that were likely imposed in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, Rothstein wrote.

No parties responded to a request for comment before press time.