Judge lets more cities, counties skirt Trump's ‘vague’ grant conditions 

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — A federal judge Tuesday extended a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration from imposing certain conditions on recipients of federal housing, transportation and other grants.

Chief U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg ruled that the 14 cities and counties the plaintiffs added in their second amended complaint “face the same constitutional harm and budgetary uncertainty” as the original ones.

“Plaintiffs are injured by the uncertainty and broadness of the meaning and reach of defendants’ conditions and the requirement nonetheless to certify compliance,” the Barack Obama appointee wrote in his 20-page order. “Plaintiffs have demonstrated they receive or actively seek at least some grant funding threatened by each defendant’s grant conditions against whom they seek relief. This is enough to establish irreparable harm.”

Seeborg also rejected the government’s motion to dismiss or transfer the case. He additionally denied the plaintiffs’ request for a stay of agency action, finding it unnecessary for complete relief.

“The preliminary injunction — prohibiting the enforcement of defendants’ unlawful grant conditions against plaintiffs who currently receive or actively seek grants from defendants— provides complete relief to plaintiffs without the need for a stay of all unlawful agency action,” he said.

In a statement to Courthouse News, Fresno City Attorney Andrew Janz said that they are “pleased that the courts continue to protect our congressionally approved funding for transportation, housing, and public safety. “

“The grant requirements imposed by this administration are unconstitutional and we will continue to fight to preserve all federal funding awarded to the city of Fresno,” he said.

A representative for the Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment.

Led by Fresno, California, the coalition of U.S. cities, counties and other entities sued the government in August 2025, arguing federal agencies violated the Constitution by imposing “vague and unauthorized conditions” on federal grants to pressure the cities to comply with the administration’s policy preferences related to diversity, equity and inclusion, “gender ideology,” “elective abortion” and federal immigration enforcement.

Seeborg issued a temporary restraining order that same month on the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency.

In September 2025, the judge granted the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, further blocking a majority of those agencies from imposing or enforcing the grant conditions, but said there was no evidence the EPA continued to enforce its policy conditions.

In Tuesday’s order, Seeborg extended the initial preliminary injunction to the additional plaintiffs, finding that they are likely to succeed on their claims that agency conditions on funding were arbitrary and capricious.

“The inquiry as to whether the HUD, HHS and DOT conditions — as enforced by its operating administrations — are arbitrary and capricious is based on each agency’s specific version of the grant condition, announcement of the condition, and explanation or lack thereof,” he said.

He continued: “The inquiry would only change as applied to the additional plaintiffs if an agency changed the condition or its explanation when applying it to the new plaintiffs. Defendants make no such argument.”

Seeborg reiterated that the feds do not have the power to impose the challenged conditions on the cities and counties.

As for the government’s motion to dismiss, the judge ruled that similar lawsuits the plaintiffs have filed touch on similar issues, but rely on different evidence, facts and different parties. Seeborg declined to dismiss all claims against the EPA, writing the government’s statement that “the conduct has ended and will not recur is insufficient.”

“President Trump has not rescinded his executive orders, and the EPA has not acknowledged the unlawfulness of its actions and has made no assurances that it will refrain from imposing substantively similar conditions in the future,” he said.

According to the plaintiffs — a coalition of California cities and counties, as well as St. Paul, Minnesota, Monroe County, New York and the Monroe County Airport Authority — in the initial complaint, Fresno received an email from the Department of Housing and Urban Development on Aug. 18, 2025, questioning the city’s certification that federal funds from the Community Development Block Grant would be allocated in accordance with the law.

The city claims the agency told it to remove all references to the words “equity,” “environmental justice” and transgender people. Fresno also says it had to vow to not use funds to promote “gender ideology,” as defined by Trump — or risk the government withholding funds.

Follow @mhattridge_