###

The City of Eureka is among a group of plaintiffs that prevailed over the Trump administration in federal court Tuesday.

The plaintiffs, a group of local organizations and governments that receive millions of dollars of federal grant money, accused the Trump administration of imposing “unauthorized and vague conditions” on their grant funding. Yesterday, a federal judge agreed, issuing a preliminary injunction that bars the administration from making grants conditional upon fulfilling Trump’s policy goals.

The president’s administration was trying to force grantees to comply with a series of recent executive orders that prohibit recipients from promoting “woke” beliefs and practices, such as DEI, “gender ideology” and elective abortion, while requiring them to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts. The City of Eureka is among many jurisdictions to have passed a sanctuary ordinance prohibiting the sharing of immigration-related information with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The plaintiffs in this suit, led by the City of Fresno, challenged the actions on constitutional grounds, arguing that they violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Fifth Amendment, Separation of Powers, the Spending Clause and the Tenth Amendment.

The City of Eureka joined the lawsuit last month. City Manager Miles Slattery told the Outpost via phone that while the city has not yet received any grants that would have been contingent on those new conditions, it regularly received Community Development Block Grants and federal transportation grants.

“We’re looking at a $5 million grant for transportation [currently],” he said.

With yesterday’s ruling, which follows a temporary restraining order granted last month, Judge Richard Seeborg found that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their case. Only Congress has the authority to impose conditions on federal grant funding, he noted. And he found that the administration’s grant conditions likely violate the Separation of Powers; they’re unrelated to the expertise of the granting agencies; and the vagueness of the conditions would encourage “arbitrary and discriminatory” enforcement, among other issues.

The order applies to these federal agencies:

• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
• U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
• Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
• Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
• Federal Highway Administration (FHA)

It’s unknown whether defendants’ attorneys will now seek a permanent injunction. The Trump administration could also appeal the ruling. You can read the decision full at this link.