Trump Admin. Scores Another Legal Win

It’s been a minute since the Trump administration notched a notable win in the appellate courts, but Wednesday introduced another one for them. This one includes points undergirding a quantity of the legal challenges introduced against the federal government since President Trump retook workplace one 12 months in the past: federal grant suspension/termination. 

The case is The Sustainability Institute v. Trump and includes the federal authorities’s suspension or termination of environmental and agricultural grants beforehand awarded to non-profit organizations and local governments. Those entities sued Trump and a number of members of his administration and associated companies, asserting that those suspensions/terminations violated the Administrative Procedure Act, sure appropriations statutes, and the Constitution. 

South Carolina District Court Judge Richard Gergel granted a everlasting injunction on the APA claims and a preliminary injunction on the extremely vires and nonstatutory review claims in May, and the administration appealed to the 4th Circuit. On Wednesday, a three-judge panel, consisting of Judge Paul Niemeyer (Bush 41), Judge Allison Jones Rushing (Trump), and Judge Toby Heytens (Biden), vacated the district court’s order and remanded the case to the district court for additional proceedings constant with their opinion. 

The key to the 4th Circuit’s ruling is that the APA claims are primarily contractual in nature, and thus, as the Supreme Court famous in its ruling last April in Department of Education v. California, “the Tucker Act grants the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over suits based on ‘any express or implied contract with the United States.’” From the 4th Circuit’s opinion:

The upshot is that the alleged statutory and constitutional violations don’t alter the primarily contractual nature of Plaintiffs’ APA claims before us on appeal. “The core of [P]laintiffs’ suit alleges that the Government unlawfully terminated their grants.” Id. at 2665 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring in half and dissenting in half). And Plaintiffs establish no source of law, moreover their grant agreements, guaranteeing them the aid they search: continued funds on those grants. At backside, Plaintiffs’ “injury and alleged right to payment stem from the government’s refusal to pay promised grants according to the terms and conditions that accompany them.” Id. at 2664 (Gorsuch, J., concurring in half and dissenting in half). Under the Supreme Court’s current selections, “the source of the rights upon which the plaintiff[s] base[] [their] claims” is thus contractual. Megapulse, 672 F.2nd at 968.

Since the claims in query belong in the Court of Federal Claims, the South Carolina District Court doesn’t have jurisdiction over them.

ALSO SEE: Breaking: SCOTUS Sides With Trump Admin 5-4, Stays Lower Court Ruling Compelling Teacher Training Grants

That Didn’t Take Long: D.C. Circuit Places Stay on Key Ruling That Favored Trump Administration

As to the appropriations/constitutional claims, the 4th Circuit equally discovered the plaintiffs’ arguments unavailing, figuring out that plaintiffs failed to show the federal government’s motion was “entirely in excess of its delegated powers and contrary to a specific prohibition in a statute.”

The downside, however, is that Plaintiffs have recognized no statute “specific[ally] prohibit[ing]” the Government from freezing or terminating their grants. Nuclear Regul. Comm’n, 145 S. Ct. at 1776 (inner citation marks and emphasis omitted). The appropriations statutes cited by Plaintiffs acceptable funds for explicit applications and targets. But none of them purport to inform the Government that it must contract particularly with Plaintiffs. Cf. Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U.S. 182, 192 (1993) (explaining that “the very point of a lump-sum appropriation is to give an agency the capacity to adapt to changing circumstances and meet its statutory responsibilities in what it sees as the most effective or desirable way”). Absent a statute particularly prohibiting the Government from freezing or terminating Plaintiffs’ grants, the district court erred in discovering that the Government probably acted extremely vires in freezing or terminating those grants. See Nuclear Regul. Comm’n,145 S. Ct. at 1776. It follows that the court’s awarded remedy—“direct[ing] that Plaintiffs[’] access to funding for [their] grants be immediately restored”—was also error. Sustainability Inst., 784 F. Supp. 3d at 878.

So, this is unquestionably a win for the Trump administration — for now. Plaintiffs might properly search rehearing en banc, which might, of course, reverse the panel resolution, though the make-up of the 4th Circuit is such that it could be a nearer call, notably given that one of the judges signing off on this opinion is a Biden appointee. 

While a comparable victory in the D.C. Circuit was subsequently reversed by that court en banc, I’ve a sneaking suspicion that the majority of the circumstances involving federal grant suspensions and terminations are going to in the end go the way in which of this one. We’ll actually be preserving tabs on how they play out and report on any developments as warranted. 

Editor’s Note: Unelected federal judges are hijacking President Trump’s agenda and insulting the need of the people.

Help us expose out-of-control judges, lifeless set on halting President Trump’s mandate for change. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.