Following a federal court order temporarily blocking President Trump’s freeze on federal funding, the Department of Justice (DOJ) argued the order only addressed the OMB memo, not the president’s broader spending priorities. The DOJ contends the order’s ambiguity could unduly restrict executive branch authority and the separation of powers. Plaintiffs, 22 Democratic states and Washington D.C., challenged the funding freeze as a violation of the separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act. Despite the OMB rescinding its initial memo, the DOJ maintains the administration can still communicate with agencies about spending priorities.
Read More
A US District Judge has issued a significant ruling, blocking an attempt by a former administration to freeze federal spending for 22 states. This action, taken at the request of Democratic attorneys general from those states and the District of Columbia, directly challenges a policy that aimed to significantly curtail federal funding.
The judge’s decision highlights concerns regarding the constitutionality and legality of the proposed spending freeze. The court found the actions likely violated both the Constitution and existing federal statutes. This underscores the serious legal ramifications of such a sweeping measure, emphasizing the importance of adhering to established legal frameworks governing federal spending.… Continue reading
A federal judge in Kentucky has struck down the Biden administration’s revised Title IX regulations, deeming them an overreach of presidential authority. The ruling, which follows lawsuits from multiple Republican states, invalidates the entire regulation, reverting interpretations of Title IX to its pre-2022 status. The judge cited concerns about exceeding the law’s original scope and violations of free speech rights. The decision has been praised by conservatives and criticized by LGBTQ+ advocacy groups as a setback for student protections.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood