Attorneys offered a glimpse of what’s to come in the federal lawsuit challenging the federal funding freeze during a virtual status conference in U.S. District Court in Rhode Island last Thursday.
The 21-minute meeting was streamed via the court’s YouTube page, an unusual move for a “pedantic scheduling conference” typically only open to parties to the case, Chief Judge John McConnell Jr. said. However, McConnell said the court received multiple press inquiries asking the meeting to be open to the public.
The high–profile lawsuit was first filed in Providence on Jan. 28 by 23 Democratic attorneys general scrambling to block a federal funding freeze in the wake of a White House budget memo. The memo was later rescinded, but McConnell granted a temporary restraining order on Jan. 31, preventing President Donald Trump and the other federal cabinet heads named in the complaint from freezing funds until further notice.
The AGs still want a more permanent block via a preliminary injunction, which would prevent the federal government from barring states’ access to critical federal grants and aid until a final judgment is made. The AGs had until last Friday to submit additional, written arguments for the preliminary injunction.
The forthcoming filing will likely include more affidavits from state administrators whose agencies would be hurt by a freeze, Kate Sabatini, civil division chief for the Rhode Island Office of the Attorney General, told McConnell. However, the AGs don’t plan on bringing in witnesses to testify in a trial-like proceeding known as an evidentiary hearing.
Daniel Schwei, the U.S. Department of Justice attorney representing Trump and federal cabinet heads, also said the defense does not plan to call for witness testimony.
“We share the desire for an expeditious resolution,” Schwei said.
The proposal for preliminary injunction will be argued in federal court in Providence on Feb. 21, though there will also be an option for remote participation. Ahead of the hearing, McConnell verbally indicated he would grant a 14-day extension to the existing temporary restraining order, ensuring there are no attempts to freeze access to federal funds. A written order was filed in court immediately following the hearing, according to court documents.
However, there appears to be confusion over what’s included in his existing restraining order. Schwei, in a Monday, Feb. 3, filing, said he intended to confirm compliance with McConnell’s restraining order but also noted some “ambiguous terms and provisions” in the judge’s language.
Schwei wrote that the federal administration did not interpret the block to apply to Trump’s executive orders, nor to actions by any of the federal agencies not named in the case.
Rabia Muqaddam, special counsel for federal initiatives with the Office of the New York State Attorney General, said Thursday that state agencies were still being blocked from accessing federal funds that support programs and payroll under this loophole.
McConnell punted further discussion on the issue to a future hearing since the concerns did not relate to scheduling or administrative tasks.
“On something as serious as that or as big as that, we need to do it formally,” he said, adding that the existing restraining order was “clear.”
Ahead of the upcoming hearing on Feb. 21, McConnell also promised to share a list of “our finest restaurants” with out-of-towners.
Last Monday, a federal judge in D.C. issued a temporary restraining order blocking the funding freeze in response to a separate lawsuit filed by nonprofit and business groups.
This story was originally published by the Rhode Island Current.
