Federal Judge Rules OMB Unlawfully Removed Site, Citing Congressional Mandate for Transparency
A federal district court Monday ordered the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to reinstate a public online database detailing federal spending apportionments, ruling that the agency’s removal of the site in March 2025 was unlawful.
The decision by U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan sided with two watchdog groups, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and Protect Democracy Project, which argued that OMB’s action violated federal law.
READ: Trump Admin Fights Full Review Of National Guard Deployment In California
The core of the dispute centered on the Public Apportionments Database, created by OMB in 2022 following mandates in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022 and 2023. These laws required the Executive Branch to publish its apportionment decisions—how congressionally approved funds are allocated—on a publicly available website within two days of the decision. The purpose, according to the legislative history, was to enhance congressional oversight and provide the public with insight into government spending.
OMB took the database offline without notice in late March 2025, claiming the public disclosure law was an “unconstitutional encroachment” on the Executive Branch’s decision-making authority. OMB, led by Director Russell Vought, argued that apportionment decisions contain “sensitive, predecisional, and deliberative information” that could have a “chilling effect” on internal deliberations and potentially pose a “danger to national security and foreign policy.”
READ: “Gestapedos” Ohio Man Arrested For Threats Against DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, ICE Agents
However, Judge Sullivan rejected OMB’s arguments, emphasizing that Congress has “sweeping authority to require public disclosure of how the Executive Branch is apportioning the funds appropriated by Congress.” The court found that the apportionment documents are final, legally binding decisions, not predecisional or deliberative as OMB contended. “Apportionments are not part of the give and take that precedes a binding legal decision; they are the binding legal decisions themselves,” the opinion stated, citing OMB’s own circulars.
The judge also dismissed OMB’s claim that the disclosure requirements impaired the Executive’s ability to faithfully execute laws or impermissibly interfered with its role, noting that the Biden Administration had complied with the law for nearly three years without issue. “This is a management issue; not a constitutional one,” Judge Sullivan wrote.
Both CREW and Protect Democracy argued they suffered “informational injuries” by being deprived of data crucial to their missions of monitoring government activity and promoting transparency. Protect Democracy also cited economic injury due to its inability to maintain OpenOMB.org, a user-friendly platform that pulled data from the now-removed government database. The court agreed, finding that the groups’ use of the information directly aligns with Congress’s intent to provide greater transparency.
READ: Trump Calls For California Rep. Adam Schiff Prosecution Over Alleged Mortgage Fraud
The ruling grants partial summary judgment to both CREW and Protect Democracy, declaring OMB’s actions unlawful and ordering the restoration of the Public Apportionments Database. The court also issued a permanent injunction prohibiting OMB from removing the database or failing to comply with the disclosure laws in the future.
The order includes a three-day administrative stay, allowing OMB time to review the opinion and determine if it will seek a stay pending appeal.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Connect with us: Follow the Tampa Free Press on Facebook and Twitter for breaking news and updates.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox
