Trump’s freeze on federal grants halted

 

Friday, January 31 Lawsuits over birthright citizenship, DOJ actions and more are already underway and Democracy Docket is closely following every update. Upgrade now for $120/year to stay ahead of the curve and get the most crucial updates with exclusive analysis sent straight to your inbox. ON THE DOCKET THIS WEEK White House rescinds memo to freeze federal grants as litigation continues Trump DOJ backtracks on voting rights SCOTUS declines to hear multiple voting rights cases WHITE HOUSE White House rescinds memo to freeze federal grants as litigation continues The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rescinded a memo to freeze all federal grants and loans hours before a Wednesday hearing for a lawsuit filed by Democratic attorneys general in 22 states and the District of Columbia. At the hearing, a lawyer for President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) argued that the lawsuit should be moot, since the memo was rescinded. But the judge didn’t buy it, given Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt’s statement minutes before the hearing saying the policy of freezing funds had not been rescinded. Instead, he ordered the plaintiffs to file a proposed order for a temporary restraining order to properly ask to halt any freeze on federal funds, rather than just the now-rescinded memo. The memo had already been temporarily blocked Tuesday by a judge in a separate case brought by Democracy Forward on behalf of several nonprofits, public health organizations and small businesses. They argued the OMB memo violated the First Amendment and Administrative Procedure Act. In the two-page OMB memo, the White House instructed all federal agencies to “temporarily pause all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance, and other relevant agency activities.” The memo, which affects trillions of dollars that have already been allocated by Congress, specifically calls out programs for foreign aid, NGOs, DEI and the environment. News of the memo immediately sent shock waves of anger and confusion throughout Congress. “They say this is only temporary, but no one should believe that,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement, according to the Washington Post. “Donald Trump must direct his Administration to reverse course immediately and the taxpayers’ money should be distributed to the people. Congress approved these investments and they are not optional; they are the law.” Read more about the legal challenges here. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Trump DOJ backtracks on voting rights The DOJ is making a U-turn on voting rights cases in several states to align with the new administration. In Virginia, the DOJ voluntarily dismissed a lawsuit challenging the state’s voter purge program that targeted naturalized citizens and other eligible voters on the eve of the 2024 general election. The Biden DOJ had filed suit alongside private advocacy groups arguing that the purge program runs afoul of the National Voter Registration (NVRA) — part of which bars states from systematically removing voters from the rolls within 90 days of a federal election. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately allowed the purge to proceed for the 2024 election, but the program's fate is still pending before trial court. With the DOJ’s dismissal, the private plaintiffs will be left on their own to fight it. In Louisiana, the DOJ is backing out of oral argument in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in a redistricting case that considers whether the act of drawing majority-minority districts to correct discriminatory maps under the Voting Rights Act (VRA) violates anti-racial gerrymandering principles in the Constitution. A group of 12 “non-African American” voters filed a lawsuit arguing Louisiana’s new congressional map with two majority-Black districts that was drawn following a court order violated the 14th and 15th Amendments because race was used as a “predominant factor” when drawing it. A district court agreed with the plaintiffs and struck down the map. The DOJ, which did not intend to take a side, was planning to argue that the lower court had applied the wrong legal framework and left little “breathing room” to navigate between the VRA and the 14th Amendment. In Texas, a federal judge ordered the DOJ to let the court know whether it plans to alter its stance in a redistricting case challenging Texas’s state House and congressional maps for discriminating against voters of color. The action is unusual since judges don’t typically ask the DOJ to restate their position on a case due to a presidential administration change. The DOJ could submit a brief with new stances or drop the case whenever they want; they don’t need permission from the court to do so. The Biden DOJ had filed the lawsuit arguing Texas violated Section 2 of the VRA. If the Trump DOJ reverses its position or withdraws from the case as it did in Virginia, it will leave private plaintiffs to argue the case on their own. The department is expected to inform the court of its stance by Monday. Read more about the Virginia, Texas and Louisiana cases. U.S. SUPREME COURT SCOTUS declines to hear multiple voting rights cases The U.S. Supreme Court has so far refused to hear four voting rights cases that came before the Court in January. The consequences of these declinations are a mixed bag. The Court’s decision not to take up a case in Montana will ensure two voter suppression laws targeting new voters and indigenous voters remain permanently blocked. Likewise in North Dakota, two majority-Native American legislative districts will stay on the state House map, granting indigenous voters in Fort Berthold and Turtle Mountain Indian Reservations an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. Meanwhile in Mississippi, SCOTUS declined to hear a case challenging a Jim Crow-era provision that permanently bans individuals with certain felony convictions from voting. The provision disproportionately affects Black Mississippians, who represent nearly 60% of individuals convicted of disenfranchising felony offenses, but make up approximately 37% of the state’s population. “Mississippi is one of only two states that continues to punish first-time offenders who commit non-violent and non-voting-related felonies with lifetime disenfranchisement,” petitioners wrote. And in Pennsylvania, the Court chose not to consider the much-litigated question of whether handwritten date errors are enough to disqualify mail-in ballots even though those dates are not used to determine the timeliness or validity of ballots. The 3rd Circuit had rejected the argument that the handwritten date requirement violated the Civil Rights Act’s Materiality Provision, but a final decision is still pending. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, too, is set to weigh in on whether disqualifying mail-in ballots with incorrect or missing outer envelope dates violates the state constitution. SCOTUS may still hear a voting rights case from Illinois, though we likely won’t know until March. The case — which was dismissed twice — was brought by three GOP legislators challenging a state law allowing election officials to count mail-in ballots received up to two weeks after an election as long as they’re postmarked by Election Day. SCOTUS could decide on whether the legislators have standing to bring the case. Read more about the Montana, North Dakota, Mississippi, Pennsylvania and Illinois cases. OPINION There Will Be Retribution In his inaugural address, Trump declared: “Never again will the immense power of the state be weaponized to persecute political opponents.” But in just two weeks Trump has gutted the top levels of the civil service, including firing prosecutors who investigated him for his part in the Jan. 6 insurrection and his mishandling of classified documents. Trump’s hand-picked candidate for FBI director Kash Patel has an enemies list, though he denied it during his confirmation hearing Thursday even as he refused to say Trump lost the 2020 election. The retribution is only just getting started. In a new piece, Marc explains how we can guard against this assault. “Insisting government officials abide by their oaths and reject this pressure is an important but not sufficient response to the crisis we now face,” Marc writes. “It is incumbent on the media, civil society groups, judges and individual citizens to adopt a presumption of skepticism when it is told that a political opponent of Trump is under an ethical or legal cloud.” Read more here. NEW EPISODE Trump Wants to Condition California Aid on Voter ID President Trump has repeatedly said that he would require California to enact stricter voter ID rules before sending aid after devastating wildfires hit the state. Speaker Mike Johnson has also expressed interest in the plan. Marc Elias and Paige Moskowitz discuss what the GOP's aid conditions say about the state of democracy and the election lies Republicans continue to tell. Watch on YouTube here. What We’re Doing The DMV area is celebrating Restaurant Week once again. Discounted prix fixe menus will be available at some of the priciest and most renowned restaurants in the region through Sunday. Case Researcher and Writer Kaei Li will be enjoying a fancy brunch this weekend at an undetermined eatery (so many choices!) and stopping for dessert at Ice Cream Jubilee for some special Lunar New Year flavors.