A judge suspends the restrictions imposed by Trump on public transport and subsidies to the homeless/ Newslooks/ Washington/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ A federal judge temporarily blocked the new controversial conditions of the Trump administration concerning public transport and subsidies to the homeless. These restrictions aimed to penalize sanctuary cities, to remove the financing of services related to abortion and to dismantle the Dei programs. Eight cities and counties argued that these rules were unconstitutional and lacked convention approval.
Quick overview of grant rules
- Court decision: Judge Barbara Rothstein issues a 14 -day injunction against execution.
- Targeted areas: Seattle Transports, services with homeless in Boston, New York, San Francisco.
- Grant value: Hundreds of millions of federal funds are at stake.
- Complaints:Settle, Boston, New York, San Francisco, Santa Clara, others.
- Conditions inconstitutionnelles: Linked to the application of immigration laws, DEI prohibitions and abortion policy.
- Trump’s goal: Use federal funding to promote conservative policy changes.
- Tribunal’s reasoning: Conditions not authorized by the congress or aligned on the objectives of the grant.
- Legal strategy: The cities require a permanent injunction after a temporary victory.
- Impact local: The light metro network and the Seattle housing services are in immediate danger.
- Complainant’s reaction: King County describes this decision as “first positive step”.
Local look: a judge suspends the new Trump rules in matters of subsidies concerning immigration, abortion and restrictions on Dei
A Federal judge in Seattle temporarily blocked the Administration Trump of the application of a new set of conditions politically responsible for federal subsidies linked to public transport systems et Undo-ABS serviceshaving a hard blow to the wider program of Trump aimed at reshaping the rules of federal funding to align them with its policies.
The decision was made Wednesday by Barbara Rothstein, principal district judge of the United Stateswhich has stored on the side of Eight cities and counties contesting the changes. The judge 14 -day restriction order prevents federal agencies from retaining or delaying subsidy funds while the legal challenge continues.
What is at stake is Hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies that support essential local services as Seattle’s light metro system et homeless awareness programs in large urban areas, including Boston, Paris, Toulouse et County of Santa Clara.
What the Trump administration has tried to do
New grant conditions, introduced by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Federal Administration of Public Transport (FTA)aimed at:
- Prohibit the use of financing For any activity which “encourages illegal immigration” or supports sanctuary policies.
- Prohibit beneficiaries of subsidies to use federal funds to “promote elective abortions”.
- Band subsidies entities implementing Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) Politicians deemed incompatible with Trump’s decrees.
- Pressure cities To help Massive deportation efforts By linking federal aid not linked to immigration cooperation.
The Administration argued that these provisions were essential for “federal responsibility” and rooted in contract law – an argument that judge Rothstein rejected.
Reasons invoked by the court to block the rules
The decision of judge Rothstein noted that Conditions have never been authorized by Congresslacked a clear link with the declared objective of subsidiesand posed a constitutional conflict For local communities which already depend on this funding.
In her decision, she writes:
“The defendants placed the complainants in the position of having to choose between accepting conditions that they deem unconstitutional and risking the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal subsidies, including funds that they have already budgetized and that they have committed to spending. »»
Rothstein concluded that the cities are likely to win On their constitutional demands and have declared a temporary judgment of the application of the law while the longer term dispute continues.
Cities and counties retaliate
The judicial dispute was filed by a coalition comprising:
-- King CountyWashington (where Seattle is)
- Boston et New York
- Pierce and Snohomish countiesWashington
- Toulouse et County of Santa ClaraCalifornia
They argued that the new Trump administration conditions were illicit abuse and represented a Ideological militarization of federal funding.
“These changes oblige cities to choose between maintaining the autonomy of their local policy and receiving the funds on which they depend,” said lawyers representing the complainants.
Negative reaction to immigration and abortion restrictions
The contested conditions included clauses which would refuse funding to the courts considered to be Protect undocumented immigrants or Promote access to abortiontriggering negative reactions from progressive and centrist local governments.
Eliminate abortion services et Coopitation of the city’s public transport policy pour immigration application These efforts have aroused concern about the fact that federal subsidies were used to promote unrelated ideological programs.
King County celebrates a temporary victory
Shannon Braddock, Managing Director of King County praised the decision:
“Today’s decision is a positive first step in our fight against excessive power of the federal government. We will continue to fight against illegal acts to protect our residents and the services on which they depend. »»
The County of King had brought legal action specifically about the financing of public transport in Seattle. Sound Transit light trainwhich is vital for the transport infrastructure of the metropolitan region.
Next steps: cities are demanding permanent aid
With the court granting a 14 dayscomplaints should request a preliminary injunction The Trump administration, on the other hand, did not indicate whether it would appeal the decision.
The case could become a A significant event that determines how far presidential administrations can go in the use of federal funding to enforce ideological policy objectivesespecially when these objectives were Not adopted by Congress.
While the legal battle continues, local leaders claim that they will fight to ensure that the financing of social programs and essential infrastructure is protected against political manipulation.
More information on American news
