Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
In a rapid succession of legal rulings, three different federal judges on Tuesday delivered stinging rebukes to President Donald Trump’s administration, blocking key policies that had been at the center of his early second-term agenda.
The decisions—issued in Washington, D.C., and Washington state—underscore the judiciary’s pivotal role in challenging the administration’s controversial moves.
Judges Halt Funding Freeze, Foreign Aid Block, and Refugee Suspension
In Washington, D.C., Judge Loren AliKhan issued a preliminary injunction preventing the Trump administration from freezing federal grants and loans, a move that had sparked widespread economic and legal concerns.
“The freeze was ill-conceived from the beginning,” wrote AliKhan, an appointee of former President Joe Biden. “Defendants either wanted to pause up to $3 trillion in federal spending practically overnight, or they expected each federal agency to review every single one of its grants, loans, and funds for compliance in less than twenty-four hours. The breadth of that command is almost unfathomable.”
AliKhan further described the spending freeze as “irrational, imprudent, and precipitated a nationwide crisis.”
Shortly before that ruling, another D.C. federal judge, Amir Ali, ordered the administration to release foreign aid funds to government contractors and nonprofit organizations by Wednesday night. This decision came amid ongoing litigation over the White House’s efforts to suspend all U.S. foreign assistance.
The order was seen as a legal reprimand, as Ali noted that the administration had failed to comply with his earlier temporary restraining order, which required the government to uphold previously approved aid contracts and grants.
Ali, also a Biden appointee, declined to hold the administration in contempt but issued a forceful new order mandating that payments be made to contractors and nonprofits for completed work dating back to February 13.
Meanwhile, across the country in Washington state, U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead issued a preliminary injunction against Trump’s executive order suspending refugee admissions and related funding.
“While the president has substantial discretion to suspend refugee admissions, that authority is not limitless,” Whitehead stated in his ruling. “These actions amount to an effective nullification of congressional will in establishing the nation’s refugee admissions program.”
Legal Challenges Mount Against Trump Policies
The Trump administration is currently facing at least 80 lawsuits challenging various executive actions taken since the president’s return to office. While courts have granted emergency relief in several of these cases, the White House has also secured victories, particularly in efforts to reduce the federal workforce and overhaul foreign aid programs.
However, as more cases progress, judges are now weighing whether to issue preliminary injunctions—often the last major ruling at the trial court level before appeals begin.
AliKhan, in her ruling on the funding freeze case, made clear that the nonprofits challenging the policy were likely to succeed in proving its unlawfulness.
“The scope of power [the Office of Management and Budget] seeks to claim is ‘breathtaking,’ and its ramifications are massive,” she wrote. “Because there is no clear statutory hook for this broad assertion of power, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of this claim.”
She also emphasized that her previous order temporarily blocking the freeze was not enough, as many organizations faced financial ruin.
“The relief Plaintiffs now seek is a more durable version of the relief they sought then, when their members were on the brink of extinction,” AliKhan wrote. “In sum, Plaintiffs have marshaled significant evidence indicating that the funding freeze would be economically catastrophic—and in some circumstances, fatal—to their members.”
As legal battles continue, these rulings highlight the courts’ growing role in shaping the limits of executive power, setting the stage for further high-stakes confrontations between the judiciary and the Trump administration.
