The judge said the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed in showing that her court had jurisdiction over certain claims.
GREENBELT, Md.—A federal judge in Maryland has declined to block the Trump administration’s decision to cancel various grants to immigration nonprofits.
While speaking from the bench on April 8, U.S. District Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby said she didn’t believe the plaintiffs had shown that her court had jurisdiction over complaints related to grant recipients who were awarded money for fiscal year 2023.
However, Griggsby said she would hold in abeyance, or pause, the request for a block as it related to a recipient who was awarded money for fiscal year 2024.
During a hearing, she noted that the 2024 grant contained different language.
The nonprofits had requested an injunction, alleging that the Department of Homeland Security violated the Administrative Procedure Act by attempting to cancel the grants.
The government argued that the judge lacked jurisdiction over the case, which it said belonged in the court of federal claims rather than Griggsby’s court.
The March 17 lawsuit focused on the Citizenship and Integration Grant Program, which is intended to support organizations that remove barriers to naturalization. It alleged that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem illegally froze the grants. According to court documents, Noem then informed the plaintiffs in March that their grants had been terminated. Part of the plaintiffs’ argument was that the administration lacked constitutional power to decline to spend funds appropriated by Congress.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) made multiple arguments, including that the complaint was essentially a breach of contract claim over which the United States Court of Federal Claims had jurisdiction. That was the primary argument DOJ attorney Jessica Dillon made during the April 8 hearing.
It’s one of many cases the administration has encountered in response to its attempts to freeze spending.
Dillon pointed to the Supreme Court’s recent decision lifting an order that prevented the administration from terminating Department of Education grants over concerns about diversity, equity, and inclusion.
In that case, a majority of the Supreme Court said that the government was likely to succeed in claiming that the district court lacked jurisdiction. “The Tucker Act grants the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over suits based on ‘any express or implied contract with the United States,’” the court said in a per curiam opinion. Bradley Girard, an attorney for the plaintiffs, pointed Griggsby to a previous decision in which a majority of the Supreme Court denied the administration’s request to block a lower court’s order requiring the disbursement of foreign assistance funds. 
