A federal appeals court has delivered a mixed but significant ruling in the high-stakes legal battle over the Trump administration’s freeze on billions in federal assistance. In a decision released Monday, the First Circuit Court of Appeals largely upheld a preliminary injunction that stops several federal agencies from implementing a categorical “pause” on funding originally established shortly after the President took office in early 2025.
The ruling is the latest chapter in a clash between twenty-two states and the federal government. The states, led by New York and California, argued that the freeze—which affected everything from disaster relief to education—was an illegal and “arbitrary” move that threatened essential services.
The Core of the Conflict
The dispute centers on “Memorandum M-25-13,” issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on January 27, 2025. This memo directed federal agencies to “temporarily pause” the disbursement of financial assistance to ensure programs aligned with the President’s new executive orders.
While the administration officially rescinded that specific memo just two days later following a separate court challenge, the states argued the freeze remained in effect “in name only.” They pointed to social media posts from the White House Press Secretary and internal agency emails suggesting the policy was still being “rigorously implemented.”
The Court’s Reasoning
Chief Judge Barron, writing for the three-judge panel, agreed with the lower court that the states were likely to succeed on their claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court found that the federal agencies likely failed to offer a “reasoned explanation” for the freeze and ignored the “serious reliance interests” of states that depend on these funds for their budgets.
The court was particularly skeptical of the administration’s claim that the rescission of the original OMB memo made the lawsuit moot. The judges noted that the “substantive effect” of the directive seemed to continue despite the formal withdrawal of the document.
READ: Brit Hume: U.S. Retains ‘Oil Infrastructure’ Leverage Despite Iran’s Strait Of Hormuz Threats
A Narrowed Injunction
While the states won on the principle of the freeze, the appeals court did trim back the scope of the original injunction. Citing recent Supreme Court precedents, the First Circuit ruled that the district court went too far by ordering the “release and transmission” of specific payments.
The court explained that under federal law, specifically the Tucker Act, district courts generally lack the jurisdiction to order the government to pay out money based on contract or grant disputes. Those specific financial claims must usually be handled by the Court of Federal Claims.
As a result, while the court blocked the administration from maintaining a categorical freeze, it vacated the order that forced the government to immediately cut checks for specific awarded grants.
FEMA Under the Microscope
The ruling also specifically addressed the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The states had accused FEMA of using a “manual review process” to continue the freeze under a different name. The court affirmed a lower court order requiring FEMA to stop this practice, finding it was likely just an attempt to bypass the injunction.
The decision allows the broader legal challenge to move forward while ensuring that federal agencies cannot use a blanket policy to hold up obligated funds without a specific, legally sound reason.
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.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox
