California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York challenged Washington's decision to freeze billions of dollars from three key grant programs. The state authorities argued that the sudden suspension of funds caused operational chaos and had no legal basis. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) justified the blockade on the “suspicion” that the money was going to people staying in the US illegally, but – as the New York Times reported – it did not provide evidence of this.
The article continues below the video
Who issued the temporary ban on federal funds?
Which states are covered by Justice Subramanian's ban?
Which funds are at the center of the dispute?
What did the state authorities argue in connection with the funding blockade?
Judge Subramanian, a Joe Biden appointee, imposed an interim order for a period of at least 14 days to protect the status quo until the case is fully reviewed. He pointed out that suspending funding would cause immediate, irreversible damage to families and institutions.
The judge blocks Trump. The funds amount to USD 10 billion
The dispute concerns funds with a total value of over USD 10 billion. annually, from three sources: the Child Care and Development Fund, which finances the care of 1.3 million children from the poorest families. TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families): providing direct financial assistance and job training. Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) specializes in, among others: in financing local social services, including the protection of children against violence.
New York Attorney General Letitia James called the judge's ruling a “critical victory.” The states also oppose the government's demands to release the personal information and Social Security numbers of all beneficiaries from 2022, which they see as unconstitutional.
During the hearing, the government claimed that the money had not been formally withheld, which was denied by the state authorities, pointing to a real threat to the stability of care facilities.
The dispute fits into the broader context of the Trump administration's actions towards Minnesota. In the president's second term, it became one of the main targets of political attacks and restrictions from the White House.
